As I see hope as very important, I like to counter this. I also place great value on humour (qv).
And, because it is always someone stellar with whom they draw the comparison, it s fairly easy to tease them about it. So I talk a little about my being an adult learner of the piano, and yet, for all my practice, not being as good as Rachmaninov. I then go on to my attempts to play tennis, and lament that I am still nowhere near Federer's standard.
By this stage, they are beginning to get the point; however, never one to be subtle when hobnailed boots are available, I then deliver the coup de grace: "My one consolation is that I am a better pianist than Federer, and a better tennis player than Rachmaninov!"
And that moves the conversation on, normally with some laughter, to a consideration of the value and limitations of such comparisons.
Personally, I like Jordan Peterson's take on this. I know we're not meant to approve of anything he says, but actually I find him a stimulating character, who is often insightful when discussing his professional practice; it is when he strays into other areas beyond his professional competence that I think he is more... what's the word?... Nonetheless, I think that he is wise on this; for his take is that the best comparison to make is with ourselves, yesterday. That is, am I better at (whatever it s I am working on) than I was yesterday, or last week, or last year. That is a useful comparator: for if we are making progress, it is good to acknowledge that; and if we are not, it is worth addressing.But I must end now, as I'm off to give Roger his piano lesson, before meeting Sergei for a quick game of tennis.
No comments:
Post a Comment