The basic principle of the theory is that everyone in the world has 100 points. These points are distributed in different skills and aspects that make up any person. For a simplified example, a model may have 80 points in looks, leaving 20 points for intelligence. Whereas a computer nerd may have 90 points for intelligence but 10 for looks.
There are of course other aspects to people's characteristics like charisma, business skills, musical talent, fitness, artistic talent etc etc. The theory claims that everyone is essentially equal. My friend also says that these points do not necessarily manifest in the persons life. For example, a man who has lost all his money due to bad business skills may have a large weighting to something like chess playing. So if he had the opportunity to recognise and develop this talent it would get him far in the chess playing world. However, this opportunity may never arise and he may just die homeless in a gutter!
I have a few problems with this theory.
1. I don't believe that everyone has equal points. There are definitely those in the world who are quite skilled at many things and blessed with many fruits of success. There are also those people who are terribly "unlucky" and lead a simple mediocre life.
2. If the "skill" doesn't manifest itself then why should it be significant? What use is a chess playing championship to a homeless guy? Wouldn't he rather have more points in business management? Surely 1 point in business skills trumps the 1 point in chess skill. So I think that different skills should have different "weightings".
So MY theory is that everyone is on a scale of 0-100 points.
0 points means that the person isn't compatible with life! Eg a baby who is born with a heart defect.
100 points are those people who are talented with everything and enjoy bountiful successes in their life. Beautiful, intelligent, artistic, musical, great parents etc.
Majority of the population falls somewhere in between.
You will be happy to know that statisticians agree with you. Your final sentence succinctly described the normal distribution. Mind you, I think this distribution is skewed to the right (i.e., less people on top).
ReplyDeleteCan I make some additional observations?
- We are assuming here that levels of skill and personal characteristics automatically translate into "success in life".
- But circumstances often distort the translation of characteristics into success.
- And what is success? Is it how much money you earn? Is it how happy you feel? Is it how well you've lived your life? Is it whether or not, I as a Christian have lived a God-honouring life (in which case those who are chosen to live forever beat the pack)?
Just some food for thought!
In "my" theory I would like to define success as personal fulfillment and satisfaction. There is no point in immense material wealth if you do not have any sort of spiritual solace within yourself. In Albert's theory, happiness also has points attributed to it.
ReplyDeleteAnd re: your note about translating into success in life, that is what I was trying to illustrate when talking about the homeless businessman who is good at chess. Therefore one skill may be more significant for one person than it is for another. Eg looks is more important for a model than a brain surgeon (not saying that the brain surgeon might get more patients cos he/she is good looking!)
Hahahahha I heard of a study that found that good-looking people were more successful in their careers (i.e., higher success rate with job interviews and better paid jobs)
ReplyDeleteMoral of the story... don't be born ugly!