Big guys don’t take a straight path

  Have you ever noticed that there is a systematic difference in the expectations of talents between the Chinese and American people. We Chinese encourage students or colleagues, generally saying “you have to study hard”, “you have to be like XX”, “you have to take a good university entrance”, and “you have to find a good job”. These requirements are not only very specific, And they all make “you” a role model and standardized person. In contrast, Americans always like to say “you be yourself” when encouraging others.
  There are social and cultural reasons. Americans are more individualistic. Some people may think that the Americans are saying too bluntly. The evaluation of talents is to have specific requirements-if you have not even passed the college entrance examination, saying “be yourself” is not purely self-comforting?
  uncertain. There is still a gap in the pattern. Chinese people often claim that education and talent training are the most important, but please forgive me, our outlook on talents is too low.

  In contemporary China, the focus on talent training is focused on before the age of 30, and the younger the younger, the more important it is.
  For children in kindergarten and elementary school, we not only hire famous teachers for tutoring at a high price, and expect them to have various talents, but also the parents themselves have to personally guide and directly intervene. But when it comes to middle school, parents can only engage in logistics and encouragement. When it comes to college, parents may only have encouragement. After graduating from university, many parents will persuade their children not to work hard, and quickly find a stable job, go to work honestly, wait for a promotion and raise salary, don’t cause trouble, buy a house, marry and have children, and then wait for the birth of a child before coming to a new one. One round of training.
  Ask Tian to ask for help, fearing that you should be ashamed, Liu Lang is talented. What China needs is not just these people who study promotion and salary increases all day long, but also big people who can govern the country and maintain stability. Scholars in ancient times always talked about “cultivating Qi and administering peace”, thinking that talents had to do great things, but now we have done too little research on “doing great things”.
  To put it bluntly, today’s outlook on talents is the “worker mentality.” What position in society, which industry earns more money, and which position is well paid, I will strive to be such a person; civil servants are stable, but programmers have high incomes, then I have to make a trade-off between stability and high income… …No matter how powerful a person with this mentality is, he is nothing but a good sheep. It is not as good as the generation that had a very low level of education a few decades ago.
  The essence of the talent view of migrant workers is to turn people into standardized products to fill the available positions and cut their feet to fit their shoes. The growth of a big man is not such a route. A great country cannot rely solely on migrant workers. We need a more advanced view of talents.

  Harvard University’s Todd Rose and Augie Ogas’ book “Becoming a Dark Horse” describes a view of the talent of big men. This book is a summary of their many years of research, the Dark Horse Project. The two people surveyed the big figures from all walks of life in a targeted manner to see how they have achieved today’s achievements, and find common ground from their growth experience.
  Todd Roth published the book “The End of Average” in 2016. Roth’s thinking in these two books is consistent, that is, talent should not be a standardized product, and it has no fixed growth path: senior talent is the product of free development.
  What is standardization? For example, if you want to train a women’s shot put world champion, you judge that she must have strong upper body strength, so you start selection from adolescents, and specifically select girls with male physical characteristics for training. Is this correct? Because this is exactly the Soviet Union’s model of training shot putters, this model can indeed cultivate world champions, but this model is not the only model for world champions.
  Michel Carter, the gold medalist of the women’s shot put at the 2016 Rio Olympics and the African American player, did not meet the standardized selection criteria at all. Her figure is very beautiful and not masculine. When she was in high school or even in college, her upper body strength was not strong, and she couldn’t even do a push-up. The Soviet Union would definitely not choose her. Fortunately, the United States did not engage in a nationwide system to bury this talent.
  Let us imagine again. In the 1990s, if several future leaders were to be selected across China and let them bring China’s communications industry to the world’s number one in 20 years, who would you choose? You must choose from key research institutes, universities and state-owned enterprises in communication technology, right? How could you choose a veteran? So you definitely can’t choose Ren Zhengfei.
  In fact, talents such as industry leaders are much more complicated than shot putters. The standardized route may not be able to produce such a big person. People like Ren Zhengfei simply cannot grow up step by step.

  All the talents in the dark horse project are not in a straight line. Some people did not perform well when they were in school, even dropped out, and later became experts in a certain field; some people originally did a good job in a field, but suddenly didn’t want to do it, but they changed their careers to do better. Such stories make people worry that there may be “survivor bias”. After all, the “dark horse project” chooses the “dark horse”, and the definition of the dark horse is the unexpected winners. Is it possible that these characters in the book are special cases? Is it possible that most people who don’t take the usual path fail?
  One study tracked the careers of students in England, Wales and Scotland. In England and Wales, students have to choose their own majors in high school, and they have to go to the corresponding majors all the way to university. But the opposite is true in Scotland. Students do not need to choose a major in the first two years of university. Follow-up studies have found that those who settle down later can find a better job and earn higher income; those who settle down early are better off working for a period of time to change their majors, because statistics show that changing majors can make them better. Income growth has accelerated.
  The general rule here is: if you think about what you want to do in this life from the beginning, you are unlikely to achieve great success; on the contrary, if you go wrong at the beginning and find your life goal later, it’s easier to achieve high. Level success.
  Real talents have a dark horse temperament. So, what kind of temperament is the dark horse temperament?

  What Rose and Orgas found in common among these dark horse characters does not include such traits as “maverick” and “rebellious spirit”. In fact, dark horse characters have various personalities, and many of them are very docile. The book summarizes a few points. In my opinion, the most important dark horse temperament is two points.
  First, dark horse characters are always pursuing “be yourself.”
  These people don’t ask whether the industry is good at finding a job, how much money the job earns, or the status of the position. They don’t ask who the society needs. They ask “what do I like to do?” They are more concerned about the enjoyment of the work itself, they want a sense of satisfaction-not satisfied because of the harvest, but satisfied by doing it. They are not satisfied because of excellence, but achieve excellence in satisfaction.
  Second, the dark horse character has no long-term goal.
  Standardized thinking always sets a long-term goal and strives for it. If you think that financial work is the most powerful, then you must first enter a financial major in a 985 college, and it is best to study abroad for a few years, and then join a top financial company with a beautiful diploma, work hard all the way, and finally become A successful financial person. This can be fine, but this is a strategy for financial workers. Take a look at the most powerful financial professionals who have the answer and have an influence on the market. They are not the product of this standardized assembly line. Some of them studied history at university, some studied philosophy, and some used to be physicists or mathematicians… They did it in a variety of ways.
  Only when you experience complex thoughts can you be complicated, and only when you have complicated thoughts can you think about big things; you can only experience simple thoughts with simple thoughts, and those with simple thoughts are instrumental people.
  But the dark horse characters are not complicated and complicated for the sake of complexity, they are just exploring.
  Therefore, you are unlikely to know what you should do as soon as you graduate from college. Those who have been working hard for the same goal do not know what they want to do early on, but have never thought about what they want to do. How can someone who doesn’t even think about it well can do it well?

  Then you said that choosing a job for the sake of “being yourself” is not rational enough? It’s irrational. Major decisions in life cannot be completely rational.
  Therefore, the strategy of dark horse figures is to take one step at a time. They don’t talk about long-term goals, but only look at short-term goals. As long as the short-term goal is in line with the current values, and then find ways to accomplish this goal, then you will naturally know what to do after completion. Every time you choose a project that you care about most, is most suitable, and can get the most satisfaction, and find the global best from the local best, this is the best path strategy in the uncertain world.

error: Content is protected !!