3:1 - The magic formula for attention to growth

 Natural strengths respond to training more readily than natural weaknesses. If someone has the muscular build of a sprinter, they are better off training to become a sprinter rather than training to run marathons. The same applies to intellectual or mental talents.

Creative people are better off having these things nurtured rather than being held back rather than being made to correct some arbitrary fault which may be conventionally troublesome but otherwise meaningless (for example punctuality). 

As a rule of thumb, the ratio of time spent attending to strengths versus weaknesses is about 3:1. 

That is, a person trying to improve themselves is best off trying to spend 3/4 of their time working on strengths, and 1/4 working on a weakness. This ratio seems to produce the most effective improvements in all the elements the person is working on. 

Too much time working on weaknesses tends to de-energise and close down the person's thinking, reducing motivation and vitality. Too much time spent on strengths can cause the person to forget their blind spots, making them vulnerable or giddy.

In the 21" century, a person adds value to their community based on what makes them different, rather than what makes them the same. Everyone has a spread of strengths and weaknesses. Traditionally, we try to work on our weaknesses because we are told it is not good to be less than average at something. Often those things are relatively meaningless.

Take for example punctuality. In the age where factories and shifts dominated work, punctuality was important because machinery or teams could not function if the staff were present. Nowadays it is more important to do something that actually makes your team distinctive, competitive, rather than just conform with everyone else.