Nothing really cohesive there, is there? That’s probably because of the ambiguity of the word “potential.” How often have you heard the word “potential” thrown around? Now, let me ask you: have you ever tried to define potential?
“‘… both views had merit – in fact they complemented each other.’ Our genes ‘specify’ many of ‘the connections among neurons – that is, which neurons form synaptic connections with which other neurons and when.’ Those genetically determined connections form Kant’s innate templates, the basic architecture of the brain. But our experiences regulate the strength, or ‘long-term effectiveness,’ of the connections, as Locke had argued, the ongoing reshaping of the mind and ‘the expression of new patterns of behavior.’ The opposing philosophies of the empiricist and the rationalist find their common ground in the synapse… nature and nurture ‘actually speak the same language. They both ultimately achieve their mental and behavioral effects by shaping the synaptic organization of the brain.’”
Is potential a societal construct which we use to limit some and put irrationally higher goals for others? As Aristotle said, “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit” – is this across the board? Or is potential an actuality, a combination of predispositions that determine how good “the best one can be” actually is?
Borrowing from Nicholas Carr, I would posit that it is a combination of the two.
But this leaves the question: how can we quantify potential if it is a combination of both nature and nurture, predisposition and habit? More importantly, how do we know whether one person has more or less potential than another?
I really love this post because it’s a topic I’ve been thinking about doing myself. I agree with you and Carr that potential is a combination of the two but I don’t know how much I like the idea of “[quantifying] potential”. Each person has their strengths and weaknesses and is different and special in their own way (forgive the cheesy aphorisms). When we question how much potential someone has, we are, at the core, ranking people and saying who is better than who. It’s a scary thought but one that would be interesting to include in your paper.