What are you GOOD at?
 

Went to dinner with a couple very successful entrepreneurs tonight. Conversation got around to what makes some succeed where others fail. One of them said something that got me thinking. He believes the number one thing that differentiates success or failure is that most people do not know what they are good at, not that they lack talent or aptitude but that they don't put enough effort into identifying their own talents and matching them with their ventures. 'Too many great short order cooks want to be terrible chefs and too many very likable people take back-office jobs' was the way he put it.

So what are You good at? Not what skills have you learned or degrees have you earned.
What are the more general talents or traits you have that allow you to do something better than someone else?

I cannot say what I am very good at because I use that skill every single day so I can kinda agree to what you are saying.
I am a plus 1 HC at golf though. Hide yo clubs and hide yo money because I will win

harmon likes sucking black cock

His point was there are traits that allow you to be a 1 HC at golf.
Golfing is a skill. You are leveraging what you are good at to succeed at it.
Eyesight? Concentration under pressure? Those kinds of traits are transferable to any other activity or business.

Give it some thought. Hopefully it's introspection well spent.

Shooting pool.

Drinking beer.

Oh, and photography.

This winter I've gotten really good at shoveling snow.

I know what I'm good at, but I don't think it's compatible with being successful on a big scale.

Was reading Minte's "opportunities" thread, and cursing myself for not being more of an opportunist. I think that some qualities are perhaps more deserving of success than others :2 cents:

I'm good at

- Driving. I can drive really fast, and really safe. I know exactly how to handle my car and how to take it right to the edge.

- Making Spaghetti. My mom's recipe. For valentines day I'll be making Tracy a trio pasta. MMm...

- Taking pictures. I have a few I'm rather proud of.

What do you wish you were good at is an equally important thing to consider. Using his example, a great short order cook is fast, efficient, organized, tireless, able to work in a hot kitchen etc.... However a great short order cook who wishes he was 'able to identify new things people will like' is most likely to get the wrong idea and launch a Mexican-Asian fusion restaurant that fails. Finding opportunities that use what you are good at and keep you away from what you wish you were good at is exactly what he was talking about. He does some VC investing now and said the number one question he asks himself is 'is this person good at what they are proposing or do they wish they were good at it?'

OP, you were bamboozled at that dinner.

Those are skills, not traits or talents.
Why are you good at pool? Is it from very steady hands? Innate understanding of angles and bank shots?
It's likely that you can identify things a few things that make you both good at pool and good at photography. Those things would also make you good at X

:1orglaugh

Most people would argue 'it's luck' or 'it's timing' or 'it's tenacity' that allows people to succeed.
I think his view is different from most and worth considering. Costs me nothing to think it over and brainstorm in a thread.
Thanks for your contribution to the discourse ;)

While people tend to be good at things they like doing, and tend to like doing things they are good at... I don't think that is what he meant. ;)

Is that something you are good at?

With pool, yeah...steady hands. Good visualization of shots. I've been shootin' pool close to 45 years - there's a learning aspect in the beginning...but I was just very natural at it, it came second nature to me.

With photography, I've always had a natural talent for composition.

what if you suck at everything ? :helpme:helpme:helpme

love to play pool. Worked part time at a pool hall in my 20's. Not for money but to learn the game and pick up chicks. Pool was a lot of skills that can be useful. Like the 2 or 3 rail bank or multiple ball combo makes you hone your "what will happen if I use this english in this way."

then by the theory, you are good at sucking at everything and should do that.

It absolutely makes use of one of the things I am good at...
I can generate cogent text on a blank page faster, easier and more consistently than anyone I've ever met
During years of writing commercially while generating many millions of words sold for several completely different markets, I've not had writer's block once.
I've done well building a few different businesses to leverage that ability specifically.

I can play the skin flute

The 2 serious flaws in the theory is it assumes everyone is

2. presented with the opportunities and situations to realize what they are good at.

1. good at sorting out what they are good at or not good at.

Moreover, it completely discounts practice, effort, training and education. It takes years to develop the skills and everything else needed to find out if someone is good at any particular thing or not.

I disagree. It takes years to get very good at shooting pool, but being 'steady-handed' is not a long course of action to a difficult self-discovery. His point is a simple one. If you are steady-handed, you are better off putting time into learning to shoot pool or becoming expert at holding a camera than you would be putting time into trying to learn to sing well. He believes most people ignore what they are good at and go after what they wish they were good at instead. Fine for a hobby, not so great for a business. Also, for perspective, he wasn't talking about anyone who has sort of steady hands. He was saying if you have steadier hands than anyone you know...

I don't think I've ever met anyone without a single useful trait. Some are more desirable than others, but pretty much everyone is good at something.

Your suggestions implies that steady handedness is a natural talent and if you do not have that natural talent then you need not try to develop it. That's just not how it works,
see my thread on outliers for more.

It also implies the ability to move from having that ability to turn it into a successful business, again, a pipe dream.


I have steady hand, I can pick up dog shit without getting any on my hand. I should have become a professional dig shit picker upper eh.

Get into the porn business. :thumbsup

Not sure where the animosity is coming from Dynamo, it seems I had a more enjoyable evening than you tonight. I don't believe people can gain a trait they don't have, I do believe people can polish traits they do have. Being steady-handed doesn't guarantee you will be a successful surgeon or pool hall owner. That wasn't what he, or I, am saying. Aiming for opportunities matched to your traits would seem to make your chance of success higher and his point was that most people don't even bother to identify their own. That, being great at pool because you have steady hands and good visualization abilities makes a business involving photography a better opportunity if you can apply those traits to it in ways they would be more effective on the outcome than they would be if you chose to open a laundromat.

His assertion that many people never bother to figure out what they are good at and how else they can apply it is what I found to be an interesting viewpoint worth considering...

What is this family worth $80 million good at?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/...68_634x410.jpg

Being the family of a girl who was good at partying.

Having no shame.


.

Huh? A minute ago you were trying to chide me for my lack of discourse, now it seems you just want everybody to high-5 you for having dinner with two "very very successful entrepreneurs".

It's too bad your view is so weak as to not stand-up to that discourse you mentioned.

exactly! :1orglaugh

OP, did you look up my outliers thread for actual research on what makes uber successful people successful?

I'll go ahead and spill the beans- Hard work and an environment conducive to fostering success.

Sorry you are having so much difficulty with the topic tonight. My view is it's something worth considering. Your comments haven't changed that view. Not sure why anyone would high five anyone over anything in this thread, other than maybe Brian for having a 1 HC. It seems like a suitable topic for discussion.

If you disagree and don't think it's worth discussing, why are you discussing it?

And capital. No matter what, funding has to come from somewhere. Rare is a successful business that was started with no money. Procuring adequate funding is an art few are good at.

If that was all it required, there would be many many many more successful people than there presently are...

I always chuckle at this sort of debate style. If I felt like it, I'd serve it back at cha in spades.

I agree, that's part of the environment.

I'm not debating you.
That may be where we are miscommunicating.

What else is part of the 'environment' ?

Timing? Capital? Education? Skill? Location?

I'm not have a difficult time with it whatsoeve, in fact, I nailed it in my first post- you were completely bamboozled at that "dinner".

You obviously lack the God-given talent of comprehension, not to mention discussion.

I've kept it civil, too bad you feel threatened by an articulated opposing view and need to try and insult.

From my thread on outliers-

just one of many research papers on the topic,

http://www.uvm.edu/~pdodds/files/pap...csson2007a.pdf

Not sure we are reading the same thread

It's uncanny how people around here think I am trying to change their view simply because I don't see something your way and I articulate that.

You're more than welcome to have your view, I could not care less about changing it to align with mine.

I am discussing it, not sure how you are missing that.

The paper you linked seems to be about becoming an expert. Practicing and developing proficiencies.
The point made at dinner tonight was more about deciding what to practice.

10,000 hours of practicing hockey won't make you Wayne Gretsky... and 100,000 hours of swimming won't make Wayne Gretsky win Gold medals in the pool either.

You completely missed the point and that's because you didn't read any of it. If you had read any of it you would have read that athletic skill is not a cognitive skill. Of course 10,000 hours won't make someone wayne gretsky.

Again, you're free to cling to your dinner bro's big observation. I've shared my view, success takes hard work and proper environmental components.

I am somewhat adept, at making large quantities of Vodka 'Disappear'...

Still, it's far better to be a shitty lawyer than an amazing local deli worker.

I need to get back to this. the question is very good.

I have a savant-like artistic talent for making images that most people like when they see it.

I've also always thought that everyone has a special talent, but a lot of people will never recognize what that is. Although being a good short order cook could be a called a talent.

production, organization, sustained effort

I've met a lot of "shitty lawyers" who would disagree wholeheartedly with that statement. A lot of them would have been much better off financially becoming deli workers, and eventually deli owners or food distributors etc than third-rate slip and fall attorneys. Deli workers also don't start their career path with 200K+ of debt.