Societal Reactions and Elastic Limits


   
          Inborn temperament constitutes a kind of limit, just as native intelligence represents a kind of limit within which a person must
function throughout his/her life. Moralists and many positive mind science devotees delight in continually reminding us that virtually
anything is possible--that any person can become anything he/she chooses to become. All he/she needs to do is to set his/her goal clearly
in his/her mind’s eye (imagination), and commence striving towards it.
          Now up to a point there is an important element of truth to this positive mind science philosophy. But it is an element that is often
misunderstood and not seen in its proper perspective. In order to illustrate this point, let us consider the issue of learning how to play the
piano.
          Theoretically, almost everyone could learn how to play the piano at a high level of proficiency. However, research over the years has
shown that some people (a rather small minority) are born with the potential for learning how to play the piano rather quickly and easily.
Others, on the other hand, remain “all thumbs” at this art over very long periods of time, no matter how long and tirelessly they endeavor to
develop the requisite eye-hand coordination and finger dexterity. Most people are born with capacities and limits that place them
somewhere “in between” these two extremes.
          Now all three different kinds of people will have to expend effort and work if they wish to become accomplished pianists. And this
includes the Mozarts and the Gershwins who began diddling around the piano keys at age three and with seemingly remarkable success.
The key point is that the amount of time and effort that might have to be expended by some people might be so exceedingly enormous that
continuing to work at the piano might logically be deemed a less than productive way for them to spend their time. More succinctly, if these
same people found some other type of activity that entails a closer fit to their native talents and potentials, they would far more quickly reap
the positive self-feelings that inevitably accrue from noteworthy progress toward worthwhile accomplishments.
          To be sure, learning how to play the piano well may be of such enormous importance to some people that the amount of effort
required for attaining mastery is simply not an issue for them. This is fine! For example, Theodore Roosevelt was a weakling as a child; yet
he became adept at boxing, hunting, football, as well as at a host of other highly “masculine” activities. Of course, there is no evidence that
Roosevelt had been a melancholic (figure 1, page 41) child as far as his native temperament had been concerned. We do know that he had
been physically weak throughout much of his childhood. But physical weakness is only sometimes accompanied by high inborn
introversion and by a low native anxiety threshold. This is because physical weakness is a trait that is statistically independent from
inborn melancholia.
          If the physically weak child is blessed with an advantaged inborn temperament, he will be able to develop his weak body; and he will
probably enjoy the process! If, on the other hand, such a weak, physically frail child also happened to be born high on melancholia, then it
is extremely unlikely that he will wish to work to develop his body and to become something which from a psychoemotional standpoint he
is not.
          And so we are dealing here with elastic limits. Like the limits of native intelligence, native temperament does not set hard, fast limits.
There is always some degree of flexibility to the inborn limits within which all human beings must function and live. For most people with
poor native aptitude for learning how to play the piano, it will normally be more productive for them to find something else to become good
at. Their time will be put to far more constructive and efficient use if they do work at something which better fits their native, inborn
potentials.
          It is good for all people to learn the desirability of hard work and of the joys and satisfactions that accrue therefrom. But to force a
person to work hard at something that is at great variance from his native temperament and inborn potentials is tantamount to causing him
to continually beat his head against a brick wall. American culture is enormously rich with thousands of possible activities at which a
person can become good or even great. What gain can there be from forcing square pegs into round holes?! What gain can accrue from
forcing a person to spend hours working at something for little gain, when that same amount of time and effort in another equally
worthwhile pursuit would have netted considerable progress, advancement, and positive self-feelings?
          And so it is with the little boy who is high on inborn introversion/inhibition and high on inborn emotionality. If left alone to the
ravages of the conventional all-boy peer group he will almost certainly become love-shy and lonely without the interpersonal skills that are
indispensable for effective, happy survival. If, on the other hand, that little boy is introduced to an alternative peer group composed of
little boys and girls who are reasonably similar to himself in native temperament and if that little boy is introduced to games and sports that
will not frighten him or inspire any sort of bullying, then the chances are exceedingly good that he will be headed for psychoemotional and
social adjustment. In fact, as Alexander Thomas has shown, such a little boy’s chances for success will actually be about as good as those
of children who had been born with more advantaged inborn temperaments.