textualdeviance (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
textualdeviance) wrote2010-10-21 12:52 pm
textualdeviance) wrote2010-10-21 12:52 pm
Entry tags:
Pride goeth
I feel like a fraud most of the time. The things I can do--writing, singing, etc.--are so easy for me that I figure I must not actually have any skill at them. I feel like what I can do is simple enough that any idiot can do it, so I'm definitely nothing special.
I'm also, however, horribly envious of people who can do things I definitely can't--drawing, dancing, etc.--and I figure those things must require considerably more skill and effort than what I do.
In other words, I assume that if I can do something it must be universally easy, and if I can't do something, then it must be universally difficult.
I probably should get over this, not just because I'm shortchanging my own skills (not to mention the real effort that went into developing them), but because it sometimes leads me to think that people who can't do what I can do so easily must be kind of pathetic. (What, you mean you can't hand-construct a basic web page? What's wrong with you?!)
It's hard to measure skill/talent when there are few concrete ways of doing so. Sure, there's the ability to make a living at what you do, but it's not always safe to assume that just because someone's not getting paid for something, that they're no good. Some careers just aren't lucrative, period, and others have such high barriers to entry or so few "jobs" available, that even people with incredible skill aren't always going to make the cut. Same goes for other measures--awards, peer recognition, etc. Often those things are less about what you can do and more about whom you know, or being in the right place at the right time.
Popularity is also no gauge. For certain skills that aren't common, only a rare few people will understand true talent at it when they see it. For instance, as a layperson, I may be seriously impressed by some flashy trick or other that some figure skater does, but only other skaters would know that that particular trick isn't so hard, but something far less showy is much more difficult. Even for common skills, laypeople often don't think much beyond wow factors. (If they did, American Idol wouldn't be on the air.)
I guess that's the only true measure, maybe: When someone who is accomplished in what you do tells you you're good (and has no other agenda for doing so), then you probably are. Even if they're not in a position to give you a job or awards or fame for it, someone who understands intimately the work necessary to produce what you do is probably a trustworthy judge of ability.
And on that count, I guess I'm not half bad. :)
I'm also, however, horribly envious of people who can do things I definitely can't--drawing, dancing, etc.--and I figure those things must require considerably more skill and effort than what I do.
In other words, I assume that if I can do something it must be universally easy, and if I can't do something, then it must be universally difficult.
I probably should get over this, not just because I'm shortchanging my own skills (not to mention the real effort that went into developing them), but because it sometimes leads me to think that people who can't do what I can do so easily must be kind of pathetic. (What, you mean you can't hand-construct a basic web page? What's wrong with you?!)
It's hard to measure skill/talent when there are few concrete ways of doing so. Sure, there's the ability to make a living at what you do, but it's not always safe to assume that just because someone's not getting paid for something, that they're no good. Some careers just aren't lucrative, period, and others have such high barriers to entry or so few "jobs" available, that even people with incredible skill aren't always going to make the cut. Same goes for other measures--awards, peer recognition, etc. Often those things are less about what you can do and more about whom you know, or being in the right place at the right time.
Popularity is also no gauge. For certain skills that aren't common, only a rare few people will understand true talent at it when they see it. For instance, as a layperson, I may be seriously impressed by some flashy trick or other that some figure skater does, but only other skaters would know that that particular trick isn't so hard, but something far less showy is much more difficult. Even for common skills, laypeople often don't think much beyond wow factors. (If they did, American Idol wouldn't be on the air.)
I guess that's the only true measure, maybe: When someone who is accomplished in what you do tells you you're good (and has no other agenda for doing so), then you probably are. Even if they're not in a position to give you a job or awards or fame for it, someone who understands intimately the work necessary to produce what you do is probably a trustworthy judge of ability.
And on that count, I guess I'm not half bad. :)
no subject