Some of you might have borne witness to Sachin Tendulkar's (pictured to the left) dismantling of the New Zealand attack over the last few weeks. His 163* in the 3rd ODI and the 160 he compiled in the Hamilton test were masterpieces of batsmanship - nearly chanceless, perfectly measured and compactly elegant. His durability and sustained genius is amazing, having debuted as a 16 year-old nearly 20 years ago, and we are lucky to witness his rare talent for probably the last time in this country.
He has obviously been blessed with adundant natural ability. But he has tempered this with an assiduous work ethic which was captured today by the good folk at Cricinfo. While Yuvraj Singh (pictured below), Ishant Sharma and probably others hit the boutiques in Auckland, Tendulkar attended an optional training session. I find this phenomenal. After more than 25 000 international runs and 85 centuries, he still leaps at the opportunity to hone his skills.
This neatly demonstrates a point which is often taken to be a profound ethical criticism of nativist theories of ability as well as being used as an easy rhetorical device to guillotine high achievers in society. People are just "born with it", and from then on its simply an unstoppable rolling maul to success. Wrong. If Sachin relied only on his natural gifts, he probably would have ended up as a very good batsmen, maybe averaging in the mid-40s and being the among the best of his time. Instead, he has recognised his endowment of talent, and focused his productive energy on extracting the best possible value from it. That is why he is amongst the best ever.
More broadly, focussing on things like genetic inheritance of talent or favourable socio-economic context as explanatory variables for success seriously devalues the efforts of the individual. It is an example of a holism which pervades social analysis, a dangerous brainchild of the Standard Social Science Model which I so detest.
The individual should always be the primary unit of explanation. Also, the Indian cricket team rules all.
More broadly, focussing on things like genetic inheritance of talent or favourable socio-economic context as explanatory variables for success seriously devalues the efforts of the individual. It is an example of a holism which pervades social analysis, a dangerous brainchild of the Standard Social Science Model which I so detest.
The individual should always be the primary unit of explanation. Also, the Indian cricket team rules all.