"The naturals"

"There are novices, experts and masters... and then there are the "Naturals"" - David Baldacci

Naturals are the those who we call "specially-gifted", the "game-changers" like one of my friends called it. The likes of Sachin Tendulkar, Don Bradman, Warren Buffet...

Have you had a situation where you are doing for the first time and, yet, they tell you " you're good at this!"? 

Have you ever met somebody, who's trying their hand at something for the first time, and yet seem to be the best at it? 

If you answer to the above two questions is Yes!, then you agree with the existence of 'naturals' in every sphere.

By corollary, everyone is a natural, at some sphere or another. (I intend to leave the proof to debate)

What are you a natural at?

The following questions can serve as an indicative (definitely not exhaustive) guide:

- What do you absolutely love doing?

     Not the sorts that you would give up hours of sleep, but the sorts that would not let the thought of sleep enter your consideration set. The sort that drives your adrenaline to absolute highs!

- From your past, what achievements of yours have surprised you the most?

     The first question only checks for interest level (which is a must), but pure interest level does not mean your a natural at it. This questions filters the list down to ones where you have exceeded your own expectations.

- Pick the top five from the above list and find the common skills that helped you complete those activities. Do you find a few common skills?

- Are there any other activities/responsibilities that you can think of, where those same skills would be essential? 

I do not expect the above questions to provide an answer, but rather provoke thoughts on assessing your 'natural skills'. A good understanding of what you are a natural at, can go long a way in shaping your career decisions.

Amibguity in emails

A simple example to illustrate how amibguity can creep into emails:

The "incident" involves two persons:
P1: sends an email with voting options to determine how many people would like to take part in a cricket match at a particular date and time.
P2: one of the voters, reviews the status...

9.30 a.m.: P1 sends a mail saying:
"I have received only 7 votes so far, others please vote"
P2 responds to the mail by voting his option.

4.30 p.m.: P1 sends another mail saying:
"Since I have received only 3 votes, we will not have the match tomorrow"
P2 is confused and replies:
"How can 7 votes become 3 votes?"

What P1 really meant with his second mail was that he only received 3 votes for the match, hence the match will be cancelled.

P1 was not wrong, but he left room for ambiguity. Two possible ways of correcting it:
1. "Since we do not have enough votes, the match will not be held tomorrow"
OR (more specifically)
2: "Since I have only 3 votes for the match, which is less than the minimum 10 votes, we will not have the match tomorrow"