Do people choose what they value in life, or is it purely inherent and inborn?

Do people choose what they value in life, or is it purely inherent and inborn?

If someone is absolutely convinced that their sole goal in life is to win an Olympic gold medal in [x sport], did they choose to feel that way or is it just an irresistible impulse that they can't do anything about?

I ask because the level of effort and difficulty and personal sacrifice involved in pursuing such an achievement is almost always immense and the odds of success are extremely low, and objectively relatively little value (economic, especially) is obtained even in the very unlikely event of success (most Olympians, even those who win gold medals, don't typically make much money out of the endorsements that follow; there are only a handful of exceptions like the winner of the gold medal in the Men's 100m race, or Olympians who win many gold medals - but even they are worth far, far less than anyone on the Forbes 400 list).

It seems that this would be something that someone would not choose to value so highly if they were a rational person; which leads me to believe that it's probably some sort of inherent and irresistible desire that wasn't influenced by free choice.

Does science have a good answer to this question?

People dont chose anything

pretty much this

we grow up thinking we are not born anything but its the biggest lie of all

anatomy is destiny

So we did not choose to write these posts?

Did I stutter?

Many countries offer cash bounties for medals.

Also, these people have accomplished more and their names will live on far longer than you ever will, even if it is just in sport.

The cash bounties are pretty trivial; as is the entire economic benefit obtained from being an Olympic medalist. Most moderately successful businessmen (anyone who makes even $1m/yr) make far more than almost all Olympians ever do. The only exceptions are the top 0.1% of Olympians by earnings, who still don't make anywhere near as much as very successful businessmen. If you just want to be rich, you're much better off not doing something hyper-competitive like competing in the Olympics and doing something relatively uncompetitive like starting a unique business with no real competitors; like Google. Google has had no real competitors since 2002 (in their core business, search, which accounts for > 90% of revenue). They make a huge amount of money because they *don't* compete; competition destroys profits.

And this second point is also basically not true. Ask 100 random people in the street who won the gold in the men's 100m in the 1984 olympics and maybe a handful of people will know it; the rest won't have a clue - and that was only 32 years ago. Go back even further and almost nobody will be able to name any medalists. They are almost all completely forgotten in a shockingly short timespan.

But ultimately something is making a choice, even if it's a cause and effect, predetermined process

Does a rock choose which way to roll down a hill? No difference with our brains

Being an Olympic athlete does not preclude you from being a businessman or having a career afterwards. It's not like these people go homeless after they retire from sport. If you don't see the massive advantages gained from being a top-level athlete, from admission to the best schools, to free room and board while you're an athlete, to careers like coaching and sportscasting afterwards, then you're blind. There is no point in not exploiting these advantages if you have the talent and mindset to do it.

>And this second point is also basically not true. Ask 100 random people in the street who won the gold in the men's 100m in the 1984 olympics and maybe a handful of people will know it
That doesn't respond to the point. You can look it up and it happens to be Carl Lewis who is one of the most famous sprinters and long jumpers in history, who holds records that stand today. He has accomplished far more than you ever will and is known by far more people than you ever will.

As to your first point, I didn't argue that it precludes it; merely that it does nothing to advance it. There are no truly successful businessmen (i.e. net worth > $1bn) who were olympians. None of them are even close to that net worth.

As to your second point, I looked him up when I wrote the post, actually. Seems to be a nobody. Worth $20m; the sort of net worth that the owner of a mid-size air conditioning installation company might have. Hasn't done anything interesting or original in his whole life; just ran and jumped over some things better than a couple other people who also thought that was a worthwhile thing to do with their time. Sad!

Lmfao i think the bar for moderately successful is well below 1m/yr. Sure it would be higher for businessmen compared to other occupations, but in the top 1% of wealth is far from moderate..

>As to your first point, I didn't argue that it precludes it; merely that it does nothing to advance it.
Advance what? Not everyone is going to be or can be a businessman. It's simply false that olympic competition hurts the future careers of athletes.

>There are no truly successful businessmen (i.e. net worth > $1bn) who were olympians. None of them are even close to that net worth.
LOL, there are so few of those that you could argue most things preclude you from being a "truly successful businessman". You are using illogical statistics.

Nice troll.

Does the sun choose to shine? Not literally, but does it all stem from an initial 'wish/choice', for things to unfold in the way that they do?

These are things we can't know.

No, it doesnt

How can one be certain that anything can 'be' without an underlying will/decision/magic/choice/plan for it to be so?

Scientific method. If there is no evidence for a theory its stupid to assume its true

I have ample appreciation for scientific method, but you can't possibly argue that reasoning applies to questions outside of what can be perceptually measured.

If you cant apply the scientific method to a question then all you are doing is picking a story that you like

Man does as he wills, but does not will as he wills.

What's it matter if there's choice? You're responsible for making decisions

>You're responsible for making decisions
If theres no choice then you literally are not

Yeah but you're never going to find out whether or not there's a choice. You will find that people expect you to make decisions.

So?

We choose and not choose at the same time.
By choosing a path you are forcing the past to decide itself in such a way that the past physically causes you to choose that path.

So why ask that question?

Because its an interesting question

I agree. Maybe there are more interesting questions

And the balance of evidence clearly favours one side

We make choices depending upon the situations we ultimately land upon.

athletes don't do it all for the money. it's nice to make a couple million a year, but they weren't making shit for a couple decades. it is very satisfying to win or succeed at a sport. i still feel immense joy remembering a few moments where I succeeded.

We dont make choices at all

I choose what I value based on my values. There is some sort of free will in the circularity.

Yeah, but how do you know that you weren't guranteed to make that choice from the start?

There's a third choice between values that are inborn and those arrived at by "free will" which is environmental factors. Let's say you grow up in a sporty neighborhood, all your friends go to state championships, maybe some of their parents are Olympians, etc. Surely this would influence your values, probably subconsciously, even if you didn't pop out of the womb wanting to win Gold in the 200m freestyle.