In Greek and Roman mythology it was said that there were three goddess; Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropos who determined human destinies also commonly known as fate. But what does come into play when discussing the fate of an individual? Two authors, Emily Dickinson and David Epstein take two different positions on this topic. In Dickinson’s writing it states that she believes that there is no luck but hard work and dedication into creating your own fate. While on the other hand Epstein concludes that destinies are predetermined through an individual’s innate talent. With strong evidence and conclusive reasoning Dickinson better supports the claim that individuals do have control over what their destinies will be through determination throughout hardships and struggles, unlike with Epstein, he …show more content…
Donald Thomas, a novice high jumper, began to win championships with minimal practice and 8 months of training. Epstein’s analysis does not provide convincing support for the idea that a person’s destiny for success is predetermined by their genes. In the text by Epstein it states, “Ishikawa noted both Thomas’s long legs relative to his height and also that he was gifted with a giant’s Achilles tendon”(Epstein 13).Epstein goes to point out that Thomas’s Achilles tendon gave him an advantage over Holm, even if Holm had practiced more. Then he begins to state, “Interestingly, Thomas has not improved one centimeter in the six years since he entered the professional circuit”(Epstein 17). Epstein’s reasoning does not support his claim that the destiny for success is predetermined by a human’s genes if Thomas was not able to improve and grow to be a better high jumper. In Epstein’s research he only focuses on one main person’s potential and impact that goes with innate talent and does not have other evidence that supports his