Originally Posted by aquinas
Originally Posted by Bostonian
Yes, but for some competitive activities, the rewards are meager unless you are one of the very best.

Even if you are one of the very best, the rewards are still meager absent intrinsic enjoyment of the activity. The corollary is that, with intrinsic enjoyment, being "simply" very, very good and not the best can still be thoroughly enjoyable and rational, and create positive contributions to society to boot. Here, for example, I'm thinking of high quality PhD scientists who do not pursue tenure track for some reason and instead go into industry.

Er-- some of the very best in some fields are in industry. LOL!


The rest of it, ITA.

It's not that one necessarily couldn't (at least hypothetically) be "the best" and STILL find that the opportunity costs associated with some pursuit were excessive anyway, if the motivation to pursue it were non-intrinsic. It is also true that motivation is non-static-- so for example, I'm not highly motivated to do (anymore-- nearly 25 years later) what I earned my PhD in. My intrinsic interests have shifted. My DH is another example-- he makes a very nice income doing something that he is no longer intrinsically very motivated to do-- but he is certainly something of a rock star in the context of his employment in spite of that ambivalence, so one can be "that good" without being intrinsically motivated, but it's kind of soul-crushing. DH has compelling reasons to keep doing what he's doing, and the perspective that he controls his level of commitment, neither of which most children CAN have. Probably not what any good parent would like their child to recall as a part of childhood, anyway. eek





Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.