|
> What gets you down isn't the injustice of it, if such there be - it isn't fair that some people are better at a given thing than others, but "fair" is something no one ever promised any of us life would be. What gets you down is that you can see how it would be a useful skill to have, but you don't want to invest the effort required to develop it. That's an internal contradiction, and those are uncomfortable to carry around. Either developing the skill, or abandoning the desire to have it, will resolve the contradiction. Just pick one and do it. You'll be fine. I don't think this is the point originally made. And I'll put it slightly differently: You have a product team (unnamed scientists in the Nye/Tyson case), and then you have a sales team (Nye/Tyson themselves). What I realize is a fact on the market, and maybe inherently so, is that a good sales team can sell any product, no matter how crap, but a good product can't be sold without at least SOME marketing (and yes, word-of-mouth is natural and comes to good products, but it's no where close to a marketing division). I believe this was the issue that OP believed was unfair, and at some level I agree. I think your point might still apply in that there's no point in lamenting it if you can't fix the system, because you either have to be better at marketing or stop caring about selling your product. TLDR; He wasn't saying that it was unfair that some were naturally better at socializing/selling their product/skill, but that the fact that they were (good at selling) was the only relevant factor in getting a raise from the manager/company, and not how well they do the job. Tyson/Nye aren't on TV/media because they're the best scientists, but because they're the best on TV. |