I think this is a positive thing. People who don't give up usually end up where they aren't supposed to, with peers who are simply better. Not to say they are totally useless, but they wouldn't have made the cut without their drive, which just means they pushed themselves above their limits to achieve something they shouldn't have. Now they are occupying space more deserving people could have been.
Is that the wise thing to do? Looking at you guys.
I think there are very few subjects where natural talent will be more productive than drive and work ethic.
Not sure how you could test or prove something like this though.
It would depend on how you define natural talent. A certain level of natural talent is absolutely necessary, but that level of natural talent is found in the majority of people. If you don't consider that natural talent and only consider some specific level above the baseline as qualifying, then the impact of natural talent verses hard work is much lower.
Now they [those who kept competing] are occupying space more deserving people could have been.
Um, how are people who give up earlier more deserving?
My read (could be wrong) of what you wrote is that you may value potential/innate talent more than achievement/work. Which you are, of course, free to do. Personally, I value achievement/work over potential/innate talent.
I read a study a while ago (didn't pinboard it, sorry) by an engineering professional society on why women who do engineering degrees don't go on to work as engineers. For some, it was obstacles: sexist colleagues, unsuitable workplaces, etc. But for the majority, it was because they didn't want to be an engineer: they used their degree in engineering as a springboard into things like starting their own companies or being investment bankers.
Which rather implies that men who get degrees in engineering tend to carry on into working in engineering because they lack the imagination to do something else.
In my experience, men are more likely than women to choose degrees based on prestige and salary expectations. I'd say it's less about imagination after the fact and more about initial motivation.
I would have to very much disagree. There are parts I do not enjoy but those are more office related regardless if the work is STEM or not. I do like the money, but I do STEM stuff for fun and many my side projects eat money, not produce it.
Are you serious? I have long ago accepted that some people just like different things from me, but I still don't really understand how you couldn't love STEM work.
There are other fields which are also fun (obviously), but STEM has all the really cool puzzles and weird edge cases that a certain type of personality really likes.
Your reasoning assumes that there is a binary fitness function (either you are fit for the role or you aren’t), which remains constant over time, which can be overridden through not giving up.
it is, the drive to make it to finals and win is valuable, the drive to fail and try again, is it wise is what I am asking for the given reasons above.
You said "Now they are occupying space more deserving people could have been." If drive is itself deserving, what makes those other people "more deserving"?
Is that the wise thing to do? Looking at you guys.