If it were fuzzy we wouldn't call Mike Tyson one of the all time greats, nor would Mohammed Ali be considered one of the greatest boxers of all time.
What you mean by fuzzy is not perfectly predictable, which is true. But the results of certain individuals speak for themselves and very few people will ever be able to do what Michael Jordan has done in basketball.
Indeed, the chances of making it into professional sports is so small most people are told to always have a backup plan.
So if you want a definition for "great" here, it's that people will look back and consider them great after evaluating them _after_ the fact.
Not everyone has the _potential_ to do what Michael Jordan did, not everyone has the _potential_ to do what Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, et al, did.
This is obvious at the extremes, therefore, it's obvious that it also happens at the lesser extremes with the difference being that the sample set of people able to achieve that level of success is greater than at the extremes.
paradoxically, understanding this isn't rocket science, but it does require you to admit that people aren't merely blank canvases (of exactly the same material and size) to be written upon.
I would define my standard as something achievable by mere mortals rather than 'great' if we want to say that most people are capable of learning skills/field of knowledge, say a PhD.
paradoxically, understanding this isn't rocket science, but it does require you to admit that people aren't merely blank canvases (of exactly the same material and size) to be written upon.
I wouldn't say they're blank canvases, but I would say that brains, however different they are, probably has the potential to reach a certain level of competency in any given field.
It's not like I am not acknowledging talent. On the contrary, I have experienced what 'high' talent look like in at least one field of endeavor due to how my brain is configured.
This is a long winded way of saying if you lower the bar for what you consider success, more people can qualify for it.
While technically true, the observation is not useful for one very obvious reason. If you lower the bar too much, the skill itself is no longer useful.
The question is, can everyone learn anything to a useful degree, and the answer is no.
What you mean by fuzzy is not perfectly predictable, which is true. But the results of certain individuals speak for themselves and very few people will ever be able to do what Michael Jordan has done in basketball.
Indeed, the chances of making it into professional sports is so small most people are told to always have a backup plan.
So if you want a definition for "great" here, it's that people will look back and consider them great after evaluating them _after_ the fact.
Not everyone has the _potential_ to do what Michael Jordan did, not everyone has the _potential_ to do what Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, et al, did.
This is obvious at the extremes, therefore, it's obvious that it also happens at the lesser extremes with the difference being that the sample set of people able to achieve that level of success is greater than at the extremes.
paradoxically, understanding this isn't rocket science, but it does require you to admit that people aren't merely blank canvases (of exactly the same material and size) to be written upon.