On The Water

"The unexamined life is not worth living" ~ Socrates [The pursuit of knowledge and wisdom through questioning, logical argument, examining and thinking] Lately,  I have been observing how people, including my own self, react to criticism, disagreement and challenging expressions. There is always an embedded instinct that drives a strong defend to our beliefs as those beliefs are attached somehow to our egos, self-worth and self-existence. When these beliefs get occasionally challenged, we feel exposed and vulnerable. Being wrong is scary. And it is our reaction to vulnerability and fear that drives our forces to either accept criticism - even if that seems to us fundamentally wrong - or reject criticism - even if that seems to us fundamentally right. Learning something from scratch at a later age can be exciting but also challenging. When considering learning a new sport as a former athlete coming from a different sport, things can get more complicated. We are not talking her...

I come from a stereotypical, Mediterranean family that values education, family bonding, cultural traditions and heart-healthy food! I grew up spending most of my energy in school, learning the Greek language, literature, history and religion in a painstaking way, practicing science every day, learning good English from elementary to senior high and playing classical music on the piano for over 10 years. My parents spent most of their time at work, struggling to make ends meet, saving and investing on properties for our future and providing us with the resources for an expensive education. With virtually no parents at home, I was mainly brought up by my grandmother who spent the majority of her days in our apartment cleaning it and tiding it up and cooking our daily meals. She was also my occasional shelter and support - both emotional and financial - during the crazy days of parental disagreement against my teenagehood decisions. This was a sweet, sheltered and well-rounded litt...

Yesterday, I came across this recent publication in the Association for Psychological Science, written by Hambrick and Meinz*. Quite successfully, the authors illustrate their arguments on the oh-so-debatable, "talent" vs "hard work" for success and performance. The first to introduce this debate scientifically was Dr. Ericsson from Florida State University in 1996. To remind you or inform you if you haven't heard, Ericsson's theory is based on the concept that one needs 10,000 hours in order to acquire expert performance in a field of science, music, art, sport or other complex domains. (more: http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson.dp.html ) I will not overload you with technical terms and complicated graphs but I will just discuss a little how perplex this matter is. Based on their own research and on a series of experiments, Hambrick and Meinz, conclude that basic abilities (i.e., "talent") can predict success but acquired characteristics (i...