That's not an easy philosophy to maintain, but it's an easy one to respect. IMO it also applies to gaming. In the past, people have argued about tiers, and the question of why people pick high/low tier characters arises from time to time. Even with a competitive nature, not everyone will make it a point to pick the best character. It seems that most people choose characters based on what interests them on a personal level.
That's probably a good thing. I think it's better that you should devote time and effort into getting good with a character that meshes well with you, rather than wasting your time trying to force yourself to get good with a character that just doesn't suit you.
Why? Well because if everyone played Sagat, the ones who aren't comfortable with Sagat are going to lose to people who are comfortable with him, when these same people losing might have won with a character that fits them better. It's easy for some one like me to say "I suck with Sagat", because I do, and that's why I don't pick him.
The characters that I naturally gravitate towards have changed from when I was younger, so it's not as though people can't or don't change. But I think change is best left up to time.
Still, it's impossible to deny the fact that bad matchups exist in most games. And being at a severe handicap against an opponent who's about as good as you are is really no fun. That's why having more than one character to choose from can make things go more smoothly than they would if you limit yourself to a single character.