|Peter Boettke|
I was preached that line since I was a little boy by my father and my coaches from Little League through college. I believed it then, and I have preached it myself to the kids I coached and to the students that I have taught.
An implication of this, is that you exalt the examples of those who get the most out of the least, while condemn harshly those who get the least out of the most.
At the end of December, The Painted Area: One Tough Hombre of a Basketball Blog, the All Decade NBA Underachiever Team was named. The list includes Stephon Marburgy and Bryon Davis (MVP) and Rasheed Wallace and Lamar Odam (surprising, but there were huge expectations on him since HS). These all make sense. But I think the best choice is Tim Thomas. Thomas is from NJ and had all the physical tools to be great and he had moments of brilliance both at Villanova and in the NBA. But the consistency never could be found. (Hat-tip to Kevin Grier).
Reading this post made me wonder --- there are underachievers and overachievers in every walk of life, not just in sports. And the sin of wasted talent applies equally as well. Clearly there are underachievers and overachievers in the field of economics. I think the story of the overachiever is fascinating and I would point to John List as an example, not because he doesn't have a great natural endowment of talents (he obviously does) but his career didn't follow the normal trajectory of the elite in the profession. Roland Fryer would be another who climbed the professional ranks in an atypical fashion. Both of these extremely talented economists made the most out of the opportunities presented to them. They are good role models to follow.
The underachievers are harder to name (for obvious reasons), but I am sure everyone has some candidate in mind.
Just remember that to whom much is given, much is expected. And you need to work in proportion to your aspirations.
Don't be Tim Thomas, be more like Steve Nash (only 1 D1 scholarship, but made the most of that, now even though small by NBA standards [he is 6'3"], he was named NBA MVP 2 times in the mid-2000s; and in 2009-2010 season he is averaging 18.5 ppg, and 11apg). And, of course, if you can be like Mike (or Magic or Larry) than be like Mike.
I think this goes well with the point you were making to us the other day about pursuing your passion with reckless abandon.
When I think of people whose influence on economics I dislike, I do think they have to be given credit for the hard work they did and what they did accomplish. So while I might argue that someone like Paul Samuelson misapplied his talent, he certainly did not waste it. And in that regard he is to be respected.
Posted by: Adam | January 28, 2010 at 11:58 AM
"The greatest sin in life is wasted talent"
"So while I might argue that someone like Paul Samuelson misapplied his talent, he certainly did not waste it. And in that regard he is to be respected."
Marx is often respected by economists, even those that believe he was wrong, and markets are superior to his proposal for socialism.
Not to take this post into anything too philosophical about morality, but is the greatest sin a brain wasted - or a brain misused? One may have talents in areas like mathematics, logic or philosophy but misapply them and perhaps shield themselves from a truth that with greater honesty, bravery or patience they could see. People sometimes wear blinders or follow a selfish desire or out of fear ignore the truth - and then apply these talents vigourously from this vantage point, with blinders, and do great harm. Is that not a greater sin that "a life wasted"?
Posted by: liberty | January 28, 2010 at 06:29 PM
I totally agree with your main point but I just have to pick up on this "overachiever" thing. How is it possible to "over" achieve? Isn't this a bit like "underprivileged"?
Posted by: Bernie | January 28, 2010 at 10:51 PM
I wonder what if someone has got the talent to excel in a field but he/she is not interested in pursuing it. So is it write to have a list of underachieving basketball players or underachieving economists?..they may have had the talent but may not have been passionate about the field or had other interests where they excelled. Telling them that they should use the talent provided to them is a bit normative isnt it. So wouldnt it be right to say "The greatest sin in life is wasted life" itself. i.e., find some passion in life and excel in it though you may have talent to do many things. Maybe one does not have the talent to pursue that passion, but I guess these are the people who end up as 'overachievers'.
Posted by: Manikandan K S | January 29, 2010 at 01:04 AM
Hi Pete,
I think you are focusing on the 'seen'; the physical ability to perform a sport. What is equally important is the 'unseen'; the mental ability, commitment and so on. Nobody is an underachiever or an overachiever; you are what you are.
However, as with luck (as Hayek pointed out) it is often better for a person to pretend that the mental piece is given to everyone and work at it accordingly.
Posted by: Aidan | January 29, 2010 at 09:36 AM
What about those of us who are forced to be underachievers due to our circumstances? WIth a full time job at a hotel and adjunct positions at two colleges teaching 5 classes in rhetoric, there is quite literally no time to do any of my scholarly work. Whatever talent I may have is being wasted by the fact that I can't get into the university system, or even the think tank system -- or someplace where I can do something. I fear I'm wasting my best, most productive years, and there's nothing I can do about it.
Posted by: Troy Camplin | January 30, 2010 at 01:21 AM
Hi there,when someone 'sees'for you what you should be, he , in a way, is limiting your chances, and you become a realization of someone else's dream. One may be good at doing various things, but the reason they end up doing only one thing can be resorted to the law of selection, the strongest urge survives the others. Time is the greatest limitation, our bodies are a limitation, and being good at doing something is not enough, the love for doing something is. If you love to do something you will learn how to excel in it, but if you are excellent at doing something this does not necessarily mean that you are going to love it.
Posted by: Nightingale | February 09, 2010 at 07:45 AM
where did u find the bird, does it not on the tree?
Posted by: Juicy Couture Bags | November 16, 2010 at 10:43 PM
I have always found that if I move with 75% or more of the facts, I usually never regret it. It's the guys who wait to have everything perfect that drive you crazy
Posted by: air jordans | January 16, 2011 at 09:59 PM
I try to read
I go to work
I'm laughing with my friends
But I can't stop to keep myself from thinking.
Posted by: Nike Shox Classic | April 07, 2011 at 10:48 PM