Lessons from pound class
My wife and I go to a gym class called "Pound" most Saturday afternoons. The idea is to take two drumsticks, and then do (according to the instructor) 500-600 assorted squats and lunges across 45 minutes of workout tracks - the drumsticks incentivise you to go lower so you can hit them against the floormats. The first few times we did the class, my legs were literally wobbling! Even now, every class leaves me on the edge of exhaustion...
One thing my wife and I are most amazed by, is the instructor's ability to keep up with all the exercises, while talking to us and whooping enthusiastically XD Even more incredibly, we know that this is her second class in a row - she teaches an hour of kickboxing just before our pound class!
The instructor doesn't really look like much - I mean, you'd think she'd look like Gal Gadot in Wonder Woman, but she just looks ordinary, I wouldn't even say she's particularly slim. Then just last week, we had a substitute instructor who was even less buff. But I'm dead certain that both instructors could easily beat me flat in any fitness assessment, because when I'm on the verge of collapsing, they're still leaping around and chatting merrily. So, maybe a bit sadly, I suspect how good you look is probably mainly down to genetics.
I sometimes feel that way about my own exercise routine. I have a habit of going all out, because I have so little time, so I exhaust myself in 25-35 minutes then rush to shower and get to work. I know I pull a reasonable amount of weight/reps/pace yet I basically look like a wet noodle whereas there are some guys there who just seem to saunter around a lot and play on their mobile phones, but seriously look like they could give Batman a run for his money. That doesn't seem fair :P
So my wife and I concluded that day that while our fitness routine (probably) does keep us fit, it really doesn't do much in terms of getting us to look like Batman and Wonder Woman, simply because of genetics! But my wise wife, as usual, pointed out that even though we'll never be Mr & Mrs Singapore, we can certainly be better versions of ourselves. In short, I may never be Batman, but I can be the best me. So, still worth doing :)
In one of our late night chit chats, my daughter told me that in JC, the overwhelming majority of students are science students, and there are special programmes galore for high performing science students, while there're just two Humanities Programme classes, and a few other "arts" classes. I explained to her that this was unsurprising, since our entire education system is geared towards identifying and rewarding students good in maths and science.
Think about it - in primary school, besides two languages (English and mother tongue), the only other subjects are... math and science. Too bad for anyone who happens to be good in poetry or history or geography. So generally speaking, the good secondary schools get populated by students who are oriented towards math and science. The same filtering process is repeated in many good secondary schools - most of the classes are maths and science oriented. My son, for example, chose to take a subject combination that has the least number of science subjects - and it already includes two maths subjects and two science subjects out of nine. Then in JC, as explained above, the vast majority of classes are science oriented again.
I actually don't have a problem in principle with this - I guess, as a policy, we've decided that our country and economy really need lots of maths and science oriented people. Hopefully they're right. I don't want to pretend I know better than our policymakers, whose full time job is to get this right!
But on a personal level, I do have a view of course. My daughter asked me, if the country needs and rewards math and science people, why didn't she choose to do that? And I explained - the best 1% of almost any skill will eventually get rewarded for doing what they do well. The best artists, the best athletes, the best architects, the best networkers, the best lawyers, the best scientists, the best cooks, the best salespeople, the best teachers. If you have amazing EQ - go do a job that rewards EQ. If you have amazing IQ - go do a job that rewards IQ.
But my daughter astutely pointed out - some professions have a lower threshold for success. Let's say for example doctors - maybe the top 50% of doctors still make a great living. My daughter said - my math and science are good enough to get to the science class - so why not do that?
And I agree. But, what are you great at? I asked. And she admitted - she's great at her humanities subjects. Even more importantly, she likes them. Which again is unsurprising - it's natural to like something you're great at.
So the question to ask yourself is, do you want to be great, or just good? If you pick something you're great at, then you have a chance to be great. You can be the best you. If you pick something you're just OK at, even if that route has a broadly higher chance of success, then all you can be is... good. And maybe you'll never get a chance to be the best you.
Having said all that: I recognise that not everyone has the luxury of making these life choices - sometimes, you have to play the odds, let's say because maybe you're the only one in the family who has the chance to get a stable job, or go to university. In that case, maybe you do have to tell yourself, I'll take the safe route, and build a base for my children to one day have the chance to make this choice. I think many parents (like my own) have made that choice - and that was them being the best parents they could be. Because not all our choices ought to be dictated by me, me, me.
But in a nutshell - whatever our choices, all we can really do is be the best where we are. We'll end up doing many different things, but whatever those pursuits are, we can always be the best version of ourselves.
"Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men" Colossians 3:23
"There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work." 1 Corinthians 12:4-6
One thing my wife and I are most amazed by, is the instructor's ability to keep up with all the exercises, while talking to us and whooping enthusiastically XD Even more incredibly, we know that this is her second class in a row - she teaches an hour of kickboxing just before our pound class!
The instructor doesn't really look like much - I mean, you'd think she'd look like Gal Gadot in Wonder Woman, but she just looks ordinary, I wouldn't even say she's particularly slim. Then just last week, we had a substitute instructor who was even less buff. But I'm dead certain that both instructors could easily beat me flat in any fitness assessment, because when I'm on the verge of collapsing, they're still leaping around and chatting merrily. So, maybe a bit sadly, I suspect how good you look is probably mainly down to genetics.
I sometimes feel that way about my own exercise routine. I have a habit of going all out, because I have so little time, so I exhaust myself in 25-35 minutes then rush to shower and get to work. I know I pull a reasonable amount of weight/reps/pace yet I basically look like a wet noodle whereas there are some guys there who just seem to saunter around a lot and play on their mobile phones, but seriously look like they could give Batman a run for his money. That doesn't seem fair :P
So my wife and I concluded that day that while our fitness routine (probably) does keep us fit, it really doesn't do much in terms of getting us to look like Batman and Wonder Woman, simply because of genetics! But my wise wife, as usual, pointed out that even though we'll never be Mr & Mrs Singapore, we can certainly be better versions of ourselves. In short, I may never be Batman, but I can be the best me. So, still worth doing :)
In one of our late night chit chats, my daughter told me that in JC, the overwhelming majority of students are science students, and there are special programmes galore for high performing science students, while there're just two Humanities Programme classes, and a few other "arts" classes. I explained to her that this was unsurprising, since our entire education system is geared towards identifying and rewarding students good in maths and science.
Think about it - in primary school, besides two languages (English and mother tongue), the only other subjects are... math and science. Too bad for anyone who happens to be good in poetry or history or geography. So generally speaking, the good secondary schools get populated by students who are oriented towards math and science. The same filtering process is repeated in many good secondary schools - most of the classes are maths and science oriented. My son, for example, chose to take a subject combination that has the least number of science subjects - and it already includes two maths subjects and two science subjects out of nine. Then in JC, as explained above, the vast majority of classes are science oriented again.
I actually don't have a problem in principle with this - I guess, as a policy, we've decided that our country and economy really need lots of maths and science oriented people. Hopefully they're right. I don't want to pretend I know better than our policymakers, whose full time job is to get this right!
But on a personal level, I do have a view of course. My daughter asked me, if the country needs and rewards math and science people, why didn't she choose to do that? And I explained - the best 1% of almost any skill will eventually get rewarded for doing what they do well. The best artists, the best athletes, the best architects, the best networkers, the best lawyers, the best scientists, the best cooks, the best salespeople, the best teachers. If you have amazing EQ - go do a job that rewards EQ. If you have amazing IQ - go do a job that rewards IQ.
But my daughter astutely pointed out - some professions have a lower threshold for success. Let's say for example doctors - maybe the top 50% of doctors still make a great living. My daughter said - my math and science are good enough to get to the science class - so why not do that?
And I agree. But, what are you great at? I asked. And she admitted - she's great at her humanities subjects. Even more importantly, she likes them. Which again is unsurprising - it's natural to like something you're great at.
So the question to ask yourself is, do you want to be great, or just good? If you pick something you're great at, then you have a chance to be great. You can be the best you. If you pick something you're just OK at, even if that route has a broadly higher chance of success, then all you can be is... good. And maybe you'll never get a chance to be the best you.
Having said all that: I recognise that not everyone has the luxury of making these life choices - sometimes, you have to play the odds, let's say because maybe you're the only one in the family who has the chance to get a stable job, or go to university. In that case, maybe you do have to tell yourself, I'll take the safe route, and build a base for my children to one day have the chance to make this choice. I think many parents (like my own) have made that choice - and that was them being the best parents they could be. Because not all our choices ought to be dictated by me, me, me.
But in a nutshell - whatever our choices, all we can really do is be the best where we are. We'll end up doing many different things, but whatever those pursuits are, we can always be the best version of ourselves.
"Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men" Colossians 3:23
"There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work." 1 Corinthians 12:4-6
Comments