What people? Who are they? Failed professional athletes? Have you data that shows they spend all their lives leeching off you or someone else in proportions higher than the population at large?
Excellent! 
Here’s the basic mindset 
:
Unless one hides in the wilderness somewhere, “pulling one’s weight” implies, in most cases, contributing to society, i.e. doing work that is of value to others.
I commend your start to the New Year!
Dream puny, that you may never find yourself short of your goals.
I recommend simply hoping you live another day, somehow. That way, anything beyond that will delight you that you have exceeded your expectations.
Allow me to introduce you to the distinction between “dreaming” and “planning”.
“Dreaming” can be a lot of things, some of them motivational and healthy, but not when they become essential to your continued survival – like buying lottery tickets as the essence of financing one’s retirement.
Whereas “planning” involves providing for same with a portfolio of diversified investments.
Do you see the difference?
I find it amazing that, for the most part, the discussion has been centered around whether or not the selected goal is completely achieved and what is the resulting annual income, with a small bit of discussion about keeping dreams alive and avoiding some kind of corporate hell job.
I know lots and lots of artists who do it because they like to create art - some have been able to get a livable income from it, but most have not and have other forms of primary income. The point is that these people are living the life they want (in certain ways), and although we may not be able to measure the economic value of their contributions, they make life better for the people who are able to appreciate their art.
[off topic rant]
Also, who says that annual income has any relationship with the value that a person has to society at large? There are plenty of people who live off of the rent/interest/dividends of assets that were given to them by their parents, and do more harm than good in the world just by living a privileged and uncaring life. Then there are the people like Martin Shkreli, who just move money around and do whatever they can to screw the other guy, and maximize their profits. They actually cause harm. List 1000 of the most costly homeless drug addicts in America, and they together do not cause as much harm as Pharma Bro. [/off topic rant]
Maybe, the motivation is “I want to [play ball, do art, be on stage, whatever], so I am going to do whatever I can to continue to do that - if I make it big then all the better!” The long shot hope may be talked about a lot, but there is realization that it is a long shot, and sometimes there is recognition that if you are not enjoying the process of training/practicing then you will not enjoy the goal, so only do it if it is fun along the way. This last part is more true for people over 18 than for those who are younger and being pushed by their parents.
My daughter rode horses in junior high and high school - hunter jumper. If you think gymnastics is expensive …
I had no expectation of a scholarship, and she was good but not anywhere close to Olympic quality. But she got three big benefits from doing it. First, confidence. Second, a great topic of conversation for interviews. A surprising number of people are interested. I think people really respect gymnasts, so your daughter will get this benefit also.
Third, she rode in college and became captain of the team. That involved understanding state procurement procedures and dealing with unruly parents. Really excellent life experience.
I think you are going to find that gymnastics is worth every penny you put into it.
For acting and other film work, there’s a lot of reasons why people are more willing to go for it nowadays. Aside from the fact that filming a movie has become ridiculously cheap (you could shoot it on your iPhone and edit it with free-to-use software on a budget laptop… all for under $1000), there are a lot more acting jobs to go around now than they’re used to be.
TV executives will happily tell you that we’re currently in a time of “Peak TV,” meaning that more TV is being produced right now than there ever has in the past. There are literally hundreds of successful shows in production right now, and there’s not a whole lot of overlap among the regular cast members.
There’s also more movies being made than ever before, and not just the aforementioned iPhone cheapies, but real movies with real casts and real budgets.
And the same is true for other arty pastimes including writing and music and video games, as well. It’s still hard, but a lot more people are making a living at these pursuits relative to years past.
The statement was not that income is directly proportional to contribution to society. It was that if someone is “pulling their weight”, chances are that they are contributing to society. Living off a trust fund is clearly not “pulling one’s weight”. The ones that profit from scamming are the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of people who are supporting themselves financially do so via occupations that are useful to society, i.e. your neighborhood shelf-stockers and drivers and teachers and doctors and the like.
Not quite sure what you are saying. Entertainers are useful to society also. Unless they’ve been publicly funded then by definition they pull their weight or they don’t make any money. Someone living off a trust fund is not pulling their own weight, but someone pulled it for them previously and they’re still contributing to society when they spend that trust money to live.
On the other hand, if some trust fund baby takes all their money and leaves the country you have my permission to shoot them.
This is why most efforts require steps. You try making it at one level. If you do well, you go to the next one. If not, you either enjoy what you’ve done and/or find something new.
I don’t know who started this idea that “spending money” is a contribution to society (advertisers?), but no, that’s consumption. Consumption =/= production.
We were discussing wanna be entertainers who are leeching off their family because they could not support themselves (therefore not sufficiently useful to society for their level of consumption).
I think it’s that everybody has the idea that “I’m the guy who is going to make it” even when the odds say otherwise. In sports especially, young athletes who are good at something get a lot of encouragement. Which is good, not saying that it’s not. BUT, when you combine a young mind with lots of people saying “You’re good enough to make it” you get a skewed perspective.
I played baseball from Jr Pony league all the way through 3 years of Division 1 college. All through high school I played varsity, and made the All-County team every year, and the All-State team 2 years. I was recruited to play college ball with a partial scholarship the first year, and full ride scholarships the next two.
So why no 4th year of college ball? Because after the season in my junior year, I had a little hard talk with myself. No MLB team was going to want a 1st baseman who hit for average, but not for power. I hit .338 my junior year, but only 3 HRs, and 13 extra base hits. I had an above average glove, and my baseball IQ was damn good. But MLB teams want 1st base to be a power hitting position. And that was not going to be me.
I got serious about my studies, and focused on graduating on time with some skills I could really use. I told the coach I wasn’t going to play the next year, and I think he was cool with my decision. He knew I wasn’t going to make it to the show, just as well as I did.
Looking back on it, it was the best decision I aver made. But I was not mature enough to make that decision as a freshman. When I was a freshman, I would have bet you serious money that I was going to be playing in the majors in a few years.
Thank you, Obi-Wan.
I myself have just kind of bumbled through, and now you have enlightened me.
And of course my post to which you were kind enough to reply was a distillation of my approach to life, and not meant as humor.
Do you see the difference?
But on a more serious note, it is not that people become “confused about the odds” when they make choices based on fancy. It is that dreamers do not calculate the odds in the first place.
The worst thing we tell kids is that they can be anything they want to be.
To enable them to more accurately calculate success odds, we need to teach them genetics instead, that they more closely align outcome goals with what nature has (statistically) provided them for raw material.
Probably not gonna happen. In fact, this Board is full of people who think everyone gets about the same set of genes.
Alas; the Pedant was given no genes for golf, so as it turns out my odds of being Tiger Woods have always been zero (Gladwell’s confusion about 10,000 hours notwithstanding).
Accordingly, I have set my golf goals puny.
I’m a guitarist of 18 years, and someone who is fascinated by the way the brain learns, most importantly, what separates those that make it, and those who fail to come anywhere close despite their best efforts.
If we talk in absolute simple terms, the thing I’ve learnt is the vast majority of people underestimate how much work is required to be at a high level in a particularly competitive field.
They always think they are doing enough, when the reality is nowhere near - thus they believe it’s to do with talent and something they have no control over.
Yes, this may be true in some disciplines. You need physical talent to be an elite 100m sprinter, and no amount of effort, coaching or skill can earn you an Olympic Gold meal if you’re lacking in certain muscular/skeletal traits.
But to be an elite level tennis player, as long as you have a relatively normal genetics - you’re good to start.
But for artistic/cognitive disciplines such as playing the guitar, singing, chess, painting, acting etc - then anyone can become world class… if they do what is required.
What is required?
Firstly the amount of time/effort/hours put into their craft.
Then it’s practicing the correct way. Not wasting time on poor techniques or picking up bad habits.
Don’t forget the motivation to be the best at what you do. Without that you will inevitably lose interest or become disillusioned when faced with the pain period.
What’s the pain period? When it feels like you’re not improving and have hit a plateau. When you’re facing rejection on a daily basis. Or when you question if it’s worth carrying on.
The best of the best will always navigate these hurdles and keep going.
Not everyone will reach the top - there is always an element of luck and timing that play a role in where someone ends up, but while becoming a superstar isn’t always 100% in someones control - in a discipline with an unlimited amount of openings, there’s always a space, should you really want it.
I agree with most of what you say, except these quoted parts above…
I would not group “artistic” and “cognitive” as similar in this way, and I am willing to bet that those items listed are things that you have worked on, and eventually became fairly good at. Just as some people will never be world class sprinters, some very smart people will never be good at chess - it takes a certain kind of intelligence to be able to play chess well.
The other thing is that the best sprinter in the world may not navigate the hurdles of family of origin issues, poverty issues, depression or other mental health issues, lack of food security, etc. That Olympic Gold medal sprinter had good genes, good encouragement, good food, etc to help her get all the way to the big stadium, as well as plenty of self discipline and hard work.
It is true that high level success requires a lot of focused effort by the individual, but rarely does an individual go all the way without some natural extra talent and some help from others along the way. Even with extra help, extra talent, and extra effort, there is no guarantee of success.
No, but having some semi-pro experience in your CV will make it more likely to get coaching jobs which do pay enough.
There’s a martial arts gym in my hometown that sends kids to many tournaments, but the owner has never been a competitive sportsman himself and the majority of his teachers are all alumni of that gym who have only competed through that gym. A common recommendation to people whose children are interested in MA is to speak with some of the local folk who have competed at higher levels, in order to decide if they want to sign up the kid with that gym or with a different one. The guys who actually have the national and international medals do not push the kids into competing and their opinion about whether a specific child should compete or not is more valued than those of the people at the rah-rah gym. Some of the people who get recommended for this don’t even teach; those who do teach will generally get children whose interest is more on the art itself than on spending time in a bus. Having that experience not only lets them make a living teaching their sport, but gets them students who are more “their style” than those going to that other gym.
For many people there is a combination of finding out how far can they go with the amount of effort they are willing to put in (and I’m including there not just training hours but all kinds of things such as time away from family, marketing efforts, etc.) and of knowing that the experience they get will be useful in at least some of the other jobs they’re interested in. One of my former classmates is about as tone deaf as they come, but he’s a professional percussionist (he was so happy when he was handed a triangle and discovered that he could tell different sounds with that one instrument): he’s been the drummer in a couple of groups, has several records under his belt with both, and has been working as a studio musician since he finished HS. Nowadays he’s a studio musician and the percussionist in a symphonic orchestra: less bad on the back, the liver and the family life. Will people recognize his name? No, not unless they happen to be musicians or fans of those two groups. But he doesn’t need name recognition to house, clothe and feed his family.
I agree. For acting there is a certain charisma that no amount of coaching is going to produce - and world class actors have even more of it.
While Amadeus is fiction, Salieri was never going to become Mozart. And I’m never going to become a musician, especially a world class one, no matter how long I try.
Jane Austen spent most of her life not “pulling her weight.” She lived off her father, and when he died, one of her brothers. Her sister Cassandra, had the same life sans the writing. Jane was supported by her brothers in genteel poverty - she made about £400 during the final 15 years in her life (in 1800 pounds), that translates into about $50,000 2008 dollars over 15 years.
Now, did Austen pull her weight? Her books have provided entertainment for millions, and employment for tens of thousands. They, and material they inspire - movies, books, tours, conventions - generate millions every year.
How about Cassandra? She didn’t (as far as we know) make a dime. Yet her contribution to Jane’s work is pretty significant. She acted as support, first reader, editor - and her and her mother took over most of the household duties so that Jane could write.
Van Gogh sold one painting in his life. He was supported by his brother Theo. Did he pull his economic weight. In addition to the beauty his art has provided, its stamped on everything for coffee cups to silk scarves to greeting cards - generating, again, millions of dollars.
Art and Literary History is littered with people who never made enough to support themselves while the were alive, but whose genius was recognized after they died.