Do people achieve greatness by finding out what they r good at and develop that skill above all else
Debate Rounds (3)
First, let's define "greatness". It seems the OP means extreme professional success, so I will stick with that definition for the purposes of clarifying this question.
To succeed so wildly, the person must be an expert at a particular skill or subject, more so than all those around him or her. To become an expert, ignoring prodigies, he or she will have to develop that skill. Popular research cites the amount of time required to develop a skill into expertise is 10,000 hours - an enormous amount of time. We can assume that the average person also needs to eat, sleep, work, etc., so these 10,000 hours would have to be extra time squeezed out from the leftovers. Needing to use this much time to become not only an expert, but an expert more accomplished than all those around him or her, means that he or she won't have much time to devote to developing other skills. Thus, this skill will be developed "above all else", as the OP states.
As for "finding out what they are good at", it is only logical that 10,000 hours devoted to perfecting a skill the person already has a natural inclination for will be more efficient than another skill. In addition, it is also more likely that the person would choose to devote this time to a skill he or she already notices that they are good at because it's already more relevant to their life, probably more often used.
Finally, let's talk about alternatives. Is it possible for people to achieve greatness is other ways? Sure. But I think it's clear that the OP was asking if this particular method was a path to greatness, and it certainly is.
You are only thinking in one direction. I could knock off your entire argument by simply stating... what if the person was extremely good at being bad? Look at Adolf Hitler. He was a persuading leader and he was too good at what he was doing (in a bad way).However, did that allow him to achieve greatness? No, it didn't. You can't simply achieve greatness by being good at what you are doing. Again, as I stated in my first argument, greatness is where one is recognized because he has provided a beneficial cause to the public and is looked up on. Hitler was good at being an evil tyrant. Did he provide a benefical cause to the public? No. Actually the quite opposite in fact. Advocates of Hitler firmly believed that he was the ultimate leader and together, they murdered about 11 million people during the Holocaust. Hitler built his reputation as a leader well enough to lead an attack that killed 11 million, innocent people. Developing his skill as an influential leader did not make Hitler a great person but instead brought him infamy and led to total destruction of innocent people.
Your definition of greatness was where a person achieved "extreme professional success". What does "extreme professional success" mean??? This is an opinion of yours so it's different for everyone. A garbage man could view his promotion in his job as extreme profession success. Very different than what you had in mind.
By the way you didn't answer the question. The question was whether you achieve greatness by finding out what you are especially good at and developing that skill solely. What you did was give me a "How-To" on becoming an expert which is to work your butt off for 10,000 hours. Totally irrelevant. lol
outspoken123 forfeited this round.
Sure, if someone found out that what they were good at was being malicious and then developed that skill, they would not be achieving greatness in your definition of the word. But that would be impossible in the first place. No one is naturally good at being bad. Being bad is not a skill. It's a vague concept. Skills that people can naturally be good at (be predisposed to genetically) are running fast, replicating art, etc. Skills in of themselves cannot be good or bad. How they are used determines that. So if your counterargument to people becoming experts and thus achieving greatness is that some people are experts in being bad, that is a very simplistic view of the world.
Define "good" and "bad"; define how people "find out" what they are good at; define whether "good at" means genetically predisposed or something they've already purposefully worked on; define "skill". This question is too vague.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.