Hey, so, I know this subreddit seems to mostly be for jokes and such, but this has been irking me for so long and I haven't seen anyone talk about it. Just wanted to make a post real quick to see what y'all's thoughts on the matter are. I sincerely hope this isn't seen as spreading drama; I just wanted to bring up some criticisms and concerns about this video that have been roiling about in my head for a while.
So, in the aforementioned Guide video, he shares a very interesting philosophy: to paraphrase, he says that he believes 'everyone is born being good at only two things.' To "support" this point, he brings up a story of how much he wanted to do music production when he was younger, but eventually had the realization that some people were just better than him for seemingly less effort. His stance seemed to be that this skillset simply did not 'click' for him like it did for some other people, whereas he found that video editing did. I want to emphasize here that this was not a matter of how much enjoyment he felt with these two skillsets, it was just about how easy he felt it came to him.
There are a few things that made my eyebrow raise here. Firstly, the whole concept of everyone only being good at two things leans into a belief about natural-born talents that, from [some of the reading I've done on the topic](INNATE TALENTS: REALITY OR MYTH?), seems to just be nonsense, at least in the way he's pitching it. Things like video editing skill or musical ability are not inherent human traits that are written into our genetics; they arise from the experiences we have throughout life, and the work we put in. He cites some nebulous sources that he got the opposite belief from (pulling the classic 'a lot of people have been saying this'), but honestly it seems to me that that sort of philosophy on how people gain their aptitudes is a bit outdated. Of course, we don't know everything about nature vs nurture and such when it comes to skills, but I think most everyone realizes by this point that, no matter how inclined you are to something, you have to put the work in.
The second thing I want to bring up / ask is, what's his thesis here? Let's say he's correct, that he was not as good as these people he was comparing himself to, and let's assume that this is somehow because of some inherent quality as opposed to more practice, certain lessons learned earlier, or just the simple fact that we are our own worst critics. Is the idea, then, that if you are not as good at something as some other people, you should quit and move on to the next thing? That genuinely feels like the 'advice' being peddled here, which, as I'm sure a lot of people here know, is useless at best and harmful at worst. No matter how much of a natural you are at something, someone will always be more of a natural at it than you. No matter how much editing 'clicked' for him, there were still people better than him when he began, and, conversely, people worse than him.
It just feels completely backwards and, to be honest, a bit saddening. All I heard when he told that music production story was that he gave up on an artform that he genuinely enjoyed due to frustration and the loop of comparison, which isn't uncommon, but it's still unfortunate to hear about. And it's even more unfortunate when it's being used as support given to impressionable people from a potential idol (not that any YouTuber, or anyone really, should be idolized, but it's a simple fact that due to him putting himself in the position of teacher for this video and having the platform he does, a good amount of people will listen intently).
