
There is no talent - judofyr
http://timeless.judofyr.net/there-is-no-talent
======
mechanical_fish
_You will look around and find other people at your age who are way better
than you at playing guitar... in reality, all they did was starting earlier
than you or have been spending more time doing it._

I don't want to disagree with this essay... to first order. But it's important
not to take the emphasis on passion too far.

Because this hypothesis doesn't explain the existence of passionate but
untalented people. Such people exist. Dear god, do they exist. There are
people who play a hell of a lot of guitar and are nevertheless not very good.
There are people who write a lot of novels and stories but can't produce
enjoyable prose, or sellable prose.

To paraphrase Edison, success is 90% perspiration. But that still leaves 10%
for inspiration. You need _directed_ passion, and the ability to properly
channel and manage your passion is a talent. It might not be an _inherited_
talent -- you can develop it -- but you need to do more than just noodle
around for more hours than the other noodlers. You need to develop a specific
constellation of skills in order to make progress.

At the risk of overgeneralizing, the most important talent is meta-analysis.
You have to be able to self-analyze and self-correct. (If you can't hear the
fact that you're unable to play on the beat or keep a steady rhythm it doesn't
matter how many guitar chords you know.) You need the social skills and
awareness to seek out criticism, listen to it, and act upon it. (If you don't
hear your fellow musicians dropping hints, or don't act upon those hints, you
won't get better.) And you have to cultivate abilities that may seem unrelated
to the problem at hand... because _you_ recognize, consciously or
instinctively, that they are essential to your goal. (Professional scientists,
for example, need a lot of sales, political, management, and literary skills.
And, famously, our stock consumer PCs ship with lots of fonts in part because
Steve Jobs audited a calligraphy class during his brief career as a college
dropout.)

~~~
rimantas
> There are people who play a hell of a lot of guitar and are > nevertheless
> not very good.

They just repeat the same mistakes, i.e. they don't try to identify the areas
they are weak in and improve on those. Mindless repetition does not bring much
benefits, mindful practice does.

~~~
greyman
Yes, but in my opinion, an ability to perform mindful practice is part of what
we call talent. The person you described here is exactly someone who has
passion for something, but is not that much talented.

BTW, I wonder, is this some new Internet trend, trying hard to "prove" that
talent doesnt exist? I wonder what the motivation is... trying to convince
oneself that one can be good at anything? :-) ... just asking

~~~
narag
It seems to be a political thing, running during the last hundred years or so.
The left likes the _tabula rasa_ approach: if everybody can be a genius, then
we need to have a public education system that equalizes the chances. The
right prefers the genetic explanation, because it justifies that rich people
keep their fortunes in the family: intelligent people's sons are more likely
to be intelligent, so it makes sense to offer them a better education to
develop their intelligence and means to create companies that they will direct
better than anyone else.

In my opinion, both models are bullshit. To develop talent you need both genes
and environment. I believe that's becoming one of those things that you can't
say:

    
    
      http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
    

The most progressive the environment, the most politically incorrect is to
mention that you need some inherited muscle.

~~~
_delirium
I can see how you get that association, especially when discussing education
and wealth disparities.

But I think there's also a strong association in the reverse direction (I
haven't figured out quite how the two interact). To me, the sort of Puritan
conservative approach is "keep your head down, work hard, and you'll succeed",
and emphasizes practice, paying your dues, being a diligent worker, slowly
moving up the ladder, etc. The left often recoils at that, seeing it as a "cog
in the machine" mentality, and certain parts of the left at least have a more
Romantic view that emphasizes inspiration, creativity, etc. instead (think of,
say, the Beat poets).

~~~
narag
Well, I wouldn't call it an association of mine. It's thoroughly recorded in
history, the soviets and all that.

Puritans? They're alien to me, except for _Quicksilver_ , that I've read a
week ago. I think you're right that they're not in the same axis as european
parties. But that doesn't invalidate my point: that this question is ideology
(or religion) more than science.

------
s-phi-nl
By Retric at <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1647291>

"The following men won gold in a solo swimming even in 2008.

    
    
      "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Phelps
      "6 ft 4 in
      "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Bernard
      "6 ft 5 in
      "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%A9sar_Cielo_Filho
      "6 ft 5 in
      "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Tae_Hwan
      "6 ft in
      "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oussama_Mellouli
      "6 ft 3 in http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/beijing/TUN/Oussama+Mellouli/217537
      "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Peirsol
      "6 ft 4 in 
      "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Lochte
      "6 ft 2 in   
      "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosuke_Kitajima
      "5 ft 10 in 
      "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maarten_van_der_Weijden (10 km marathon)
      "6 ft 7 1⁄2 in
    

"Height is not the most important factor in swimming, but out of 10 people,
only one was under 6' and he is still taller than average. Now look at
something like size of hands and they are going to stand out even more.
Practice may be able to get an average person to the 90th percentile in most
things but once you start talking about 99.99% DNA becomes extremely
important."

(If you upvote me, please upvote the original comment as well: I'm sure Retric
would appreciate it)

------
jameskilton
100% disagree. I could try my entire life and I will never be able to sing
like Josh Groban, or compose music like Mozart, or win the Iron Man Strongest
Man competition, or beat Lance Armstrong in the Tour de France.

Yes, a LOT of success comes from effort, but to say that talent doesn't exist
is absurd. People who have a talent in a given field, AND work with and hone
that talent will always do better than people without talents that try to get
into a field they aren't fit for.

~~~
edanm
I really disagree with you. You say you could never compose music like Mozart,
but how do you know? What if you worked at it every day for the rest of your
life? Are you really _certain_ you could never reach his level? (And bear in
mind he is an extreme case.)

You should read this piece by Derek Sivers called "After 15 years of
practice...": <http://sivers.org/15-years>.

Quick excerpt (but really, read the whole piece):

"At 29, I had done it. After 15 years of practice, and about 1000 live shows,
I was finally a very good singer, at least by my own standards. (You can judge
for yourself at sivers.org/music. Old stuff at the bottom. New stuff at the
top.)

Someone who heard me for the first time then said, “Singing is a gift you're
either born with or you're not. You're lucky. You were born with it!”"

~~~
cynicalkane
Mozart was a guy who was on his way to possibly becoming history's best maker
of music, except he died an unfortunately early death at the age of 35. He was
writing tuneful, listenable, harmonious music at the age of _four_. This is a
level of talent far beyond what Sivers was talking about.

~~~
todayiamme
I am afraid that mozart at the age of 4, more or less played the works of Bach
et al. to audiences after 2 years of strict practice with his father. (He saw
that his son had interest in music when he would patiently sit through his
sister's lessons and then he started pushing him to see how far he could go)

The Mozart we know didn't emerge until he was a teenager and he started
composing at the grand old age of 13. Yes, he did have a talent, but perhaps
that talent was the gift of accelerated learning. Not the gift of magical
music.

~~~
cynicalkane
I don't understand why you think this.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart>

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i-SzzhUtws&feature=fvw](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i-SzzhUtws&feature=fvw)

~~~
todayiamme
No actually I read that his so called "compositions" at that age were heavily
guided by his father and were merely modified improvisation of Bach/other
pieces he was taught. The Mozart we know didn't emerge till a later age.

By the way, I don't mind being wrong. So, let's figure out the truth and I'll
email you, okay?

~~~
cynicalkane
Where did you read this? Musicology journal? Popular biography? Oprah
Magazine? In academic musicology unsubstantiated theories and hearsay are
unfortunately the rule and not the exception, but in general it should be
considered bad practice to so plainly contradict conventional wisdom without
giving a convincing reason to do so.

~~~
makmanalp
Unubstantiated hearsay? Actually, it's insane to call any of what you're
saying "conventional wisdom". It's sort of like saying that Abraham Lincoln
chopped down trees with his hands and puffed his enemies away with his breath.
All that we have for evidence is some compositions in her sister's notebook
that could have been made by anyone, and her sister's account which is likely
to be terribly biased.

~~~
cynicalkane
Hate to lengthen the thread, but it's too late to add this to the original
post--

Remember that the Mozart family toured Europe only a few years after these
pieces were written, and he was improvising pieces of considerable harmonic
difficulty based on audience suggestions. The documentation of this tour is
extensive, as the tour was a sensation, attended by many of the most important
people of the day, and made young W. A. famous throughout Europe.

The alleged four-year-old compositions are considerably simpler than the
things he was reported to improvise a few years later. Really, with this level
of talent, it's more wild to say that Mozart was _not_ writing music at a
young age; that his ability to imagine melodies and harmonies just popped into
his head shortly before the tour started. I was arguing talent is very much
natural, but not so natural as that!

------
hitonagashi
This viewpoint always annoys me. It's great to think that work is all there is
to it, but that's not true.

You can become great at anything with practice, I do believe that.

What I don't believe is that there's no such thing as talent. Take chess. You
really think Magnus Carlsen has practiced less in his life than Anand?
Practice is necessary to become great. Talent is necessary to become the best.

~~~
andyidsinga
good points - but haven't many of the "best" chess players beaten each other
at different points? This suggests that there is no best - but best at a point
in time - which suggests that practice and passion are what it is ;)

------
NyxWulf
I'm sure most of the people hanging out on HN have had experience with the
word "computer genius". It's one of those terms I love to hate. People who
make that assessment typically have no skill in the area so really have no
basis for comparison. When someone calls someone else a computer genius I
typically roll my eyes mentally, because those of us in the field understand
it's mostly hard work and interest.

However passion isn't the only thing. The amount and type of
practice/tinkering is deeply important. My favorite book on this subject is
"Talent is overrated" by Geoff Colvin. It directly covers this issue. He
breaks it down into time spent working on the fundamentals in a specific way -
called deliberate practice and coaching. So the sheer amount of time isn't the
fundamental issue, it's the amount of time spent practicing in a specific way
and how good the quality of instruction you have access to. It's a fantastic
read, but it will deeply challenge many assumptions that are culturally
embedded in the U.S. It's amazing how addicted to the notion of talent people
are. It helps people make sense of the world, it gives them excuses for not
being world class. Yet at the end of the day, talent is overrated will strip
that excuse from you and leave you with the question how much do you really
want it?

~~~
iwh
This book really resonated with me as well. The part I found most amazing was
the story about the man (I forgot his name) who claimed he could "make a chess
grand master," put out a classified ad saying the same, found a woman who
agreed and then proceeded to have children and groomed them into chess
champions. Anecdotal, but it's definitely food for thought.

------
lwhi
There is such a thing as talent.

Talent is a _natural aptitude_ for an activity.

Sometimes a person's physical and psychological make-up naturally aligns with
the requirements for a specific task or group of tasks; it's entirely
reasonable to state that such a person has talent.

Passion is important - it's what makes your journey seem less like work, and
is what will keep you focused regardless of results.

However, the world is (and always will be) an unfair place. Some people have a
head-start on the others. These are the people with talent.

Nothing is impossible - and I believe we can always overcome adversity .. but
some people will have to fight harder.

~~~
rokhayakebe
Would you say being 6.9 feet tall is a talent for a basketball player?

~~~
lwhi
No; height is a physical attribute.

When a group of physical and psychological attributes or characteristics,
combine to achieve favourable performance in a specific activity - _talent_
can be a result.

EDIT: although passion (or interest) is key too.

~~~
cma
>No; height is a physical attribute.

What are our brains made of again?

~~~
lwhi
Do you ever refer to a person's brain size or weight?

I don't understand your point. Sure, our brains are made out of matter - and
are physical organs. However, the interesting thing about a brain is the way
it functions; I think it very necessary to think in terms of physical prowess
and mental or psychological prowess when considering whether someone's
naturally talented.

Being tall isn't a talent - it's an attribute that _could_ give an advantage
to a person who plays basket-ball. If the sum total of that person's other
characteristics are also conducive to being good at basketball - that person
would probably be known as a _talented_ player.

~~~
Locke1689
An AMD K6 and a Core i7@2.67Ghz are roughly the same size and weight too.

------
thebooktocome
I think this goes triple for mathematics. When people say that I'm good at
math, I sometimes tell them, "Well, you know, I've been studying math and
little else for the majority of the past ten years. Almost anyone who works at
something that long eventually gets the hang of it."

~~~
_delirium
Hmm, of the mathematics grad students I've met, I don't actually notice a huge
correlation between diligent, hardworking students and the most successful
students. Some of the most diligent are just... not great at coming up with
independent, novel mathematics, though they can do okay on exams. And there
are some vaguely slackerly types who do great, novel work. Of course, _some_
effort is a prerequisite, so the most slackerly just fail out of grad school
entirely. But past some threshhold sufficient to be able to do the work at
all, it sure _looks_ like some sort of natural talent, or aptitude acquired at
a previous stage of life, is what differentiates the mediocre from the great
grad students. I can't say for certain, but unless I know totally
unrepresentative people, it doesn't seem to be a matter of who puts in 80
hrs/wk versus 40 (or even 30); some of those on the low end of hours spent are
very good and produce impactful theses, while some who work all the time are
just not great at it.

------
rue
I think the definitions are simply wrong.

Talent is the genetic (and nurtured) predisposition toward something.

Being great at something - often conversationally referred to as "talent" - is
the combination of predisposition and practice. 10 000 hours of practice is
probably not far off mark for any given field, physical or mental.

While the middle of the talent curve for any given field can somewhat make up
for predisposition variance with working harder, it is not a good value
proposition for those at the lower end of the curve. It is often a waste of
time to slog at something you are naturally geared for when the alternate is
to work on something you are better suited for.

Passion, drive, curiosity, ambition and mental fortitude also highly variable
among people. The "you could do it if you only made an effort"-sentiments
really irritate me, even though they usually spring from the inability to
understand different minds rather than any malice or sense of superiority.

Virtually everyone has a few talents, and the question is mostly of
opportunity to discover them (which does not exist for everyone, even in
wealthy societies), "passion" for it - which could less romantically simply be
described as the perseverance to work at it through the highs and lows.

In other words, humbug.

------
Eliezer
A pleasant, useful, highly motivating lie.

And it flatly isn't true. There's people who've written ten times as many
words as I ever have, and they're still not good writers. It's not fair, but
it's what is.

------
bijanbwb
It's great to see that someone else "gets" this. There's a lot of great
research and evidence that supports your thesis, and I don't think that the
majority of the population has any idea that it exists. People still seem to
be enthralled with this idea that there are geniuses out there who never had
to work hard or practice... as if Jimi Hendrix just picked up a guitar and
played it to perfection without ever practicing for a second.

For anyone interested in the research in this area, there is a great piece
from Harvard Business Review by K Anders Ericsson called The Making of an
Expert. And Malcom Gladwell's Outliers is also a fun read on the topic.

I think we are currently demystifying the process of becoming "talented" at
any given endeavor. The quicker we realize that we aren't "born to x" we can
begin to put in the work necessary to make it look like we were "born to x."

------
doki_pen
There is some truth to what you say, judofyr, but talent is real. The problem
is, the only way to find if you have talent is to put in a ton of hours.
Sometimes talent shows up later in the learning process.

Trust me, I spent countless hours practicing my bass and yet I'm am still only
mediocre.

------
emehrkay
I've been making this argument for years, its funny how many people just flat
out dont agree with it. My stance is that there is no talent, just
understanding and without physical limitations, anything could be understood
by anyone.

I first came to this conclusion in art class when I was about 15. A girl asked
me to draw a traffic light for her (I am a pretty decent artist) and I said
no, but explained how to do it and she did a pretty damn good job at it.

I feel that if you ask anyone who is talented at anything, they may have to
border having a passion for it, they'll be able to explain the how to you.

I tell my son this very thing and I feel that he approaches problems
differently than if I told him "oh, that's a god-given talent, I dont know if
you can do it."

~~~
lachyg
Would love to hear your explanation. I'm a terrible drawer, and would love to
become better.

~~~
emehrkay
Ha, it had something to do with drawing a 3d rectangle and erasing the inner
lines, adding some ovals on the front face of it. Then drawing a straight line
at the top of the oval as the top of the light cover and then drawing a skewed
omega-like shape (Ω think hat brim) from the middle of the oval to line and on
to the other side (like [this hat brim]([http://www.faqs.org/photo-
dict/photofiles/list/674/1084baseb...](http://www.faqs.org/photo-
dict/photofiles/list/674/1084baseball_cap.jpg\)))

I think about that from time to time as it really changed my life. This past
summer I helped my son create a video game from scratch (using scratch :), he
was 8 at the time. All artwork, sounds, logic came from his head with my
guidance. He kinda fears playing a new sport, but when we get the fundamentals
down, that fear goes away. It's fun watching him grow, I learn a lot and it
really supports my theory of "talent doesnt exist"

------
qjz
There _are_ people who have absolutely no passion for a task, yet perform it
expertly, without practice. One would have to conclude after reading this
essay that these people are, in fact, _talented_ [i.e. possess some innate
ability].

~~~
andyidsinga
it would be cool to have some examples of those people.

~~~
donaq
I can only offer you the following anecdotal example.

Back when I was doing my compulsory military service, I was really passionate
about basketball. I used to play almost everyday, and there was a team in my
neighbourhood with a coach I trained with twice a week. Then I met this guy in
my platoon who, though shorter than me, trashed me soundly every time we
played. I would have thought someone like that would need to constantly hone
his skills, but he didn't. He just occasionally joined us for a game. For
about a year before he completed his service I (and a couple of other guys in
the platoon) trained to beat him, but never came close. The interesting thing
was this one conversation we had where he confessed, "I don't like basketball.
I only play because I am good."

------
roadnottaken
What about _curiosity_?

Maybe you're wrapping that up in "passion", but I've seen people spend years
using one program on the computer and never think to click on anything other
than the buttons they're familiar with. I think curiosity plays a HUGE role in
learning.

------
giardini
This is the old "Nature vs Nurture" debate unrolling again. The author is
taking the side of Nurture: only training/time/study counts. And he is dead
wrong.

Some people are better at some tasks than others. No amount of practice will
allow a deaf (or even a tone-deaf) person to become a great musician. Tall
people can clean the tops of refrigerators more easily than short people and
that will always be true, no matter how much a short person practices.

Secondly, this obviousness extends to all genetic traits. We're (almost) all
genetically different and it adds up to a tremendous difference in behavior.

This question really isn't worth discussing once identified: the "tabula rasa"
theory supported by the OP is defunct.

------
WalterBright
Do people really believe that, in the Olympics for example, the winners don't
have a genetic predisposition (i.e. talent) for the sport they won in?

For one thing, it's obvious that certain sports favor certain body types. This
was discussed when Michael Phelps won all those swimming medals - his body
structure was particularly well suited for swimming.

------
antareus
I think natural talent exists, and it manifests itself as an ability to know
where to direct your focus when learning something new. Someone who lives in
their head a lot may fare better at programming initially, for example.
They're used to talking through things in their head.

But eventually the natural talent can't carry you any farther.

------
lsd5you
As others have said, this is just not really true. It is distorted thinking
that is driven by a desire to see the tenets of egalitarianism in the real
world.

It is as if (excuse the dorky analogy) we are all D&D characters with 100pts
to spend on our qualities. In reality some people do just have more points
than others.

On the other hand though, I am prepared to believe that most of the difference
between individuals can be due to factors earlier in ones development,
sometimes single turning points/epiphanies (e.g. having older brothers for
sport, reading the right book when young ... etc.)

------
zachallaun
As many commenters have already stated, this essay clearly mischaracterizes
both talent and passion.

In truth, both can coexist together. In fact, both are pieces of the same
puzzle. As mechanical_fish pointed out, passionate but untalented people
exist. And guess what? Talented but dispassionate people exist as well.

There was an article here on HN recently, discussing common creativity blocks.
The article mentioned a certain study which found that, once a certain IQ
threshold was reached, creativity _no longer_ scaled with IQ. They became
independent of one another. The same is likely true for passion and talent,
with the ultimate effect being on ability. Once you reach a certain threshold
for both, an increase in one will increase your ability to ultimately perform
a task. This accounts for situations like those of the author, where a low
perceived talent had little effect on his ability, as his passion was so
great. It also accounts for situations like those described by
mechanical_fish, where a person has not reached a certain natural talent
threshold, and can therefore not increase his ability substantially through
passion alone.

Most people have one in spades, and enough of the other. Those that have tons
of both -- well, that explains savants.

------
Volscio
It's easier to be passionate about something when you've always been
successful at it.

Also, somewhat related: Dirty Jobs' Mike Rowe on how you shouldn't follow your
passion but should go where everyone else didn't go. (link is a blog post
discussing his TED Talk, which you should watch)

[https://ramblingperfectionist.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/mike-...](https://ramblingperfectionist.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/mike-
rowe-dirty-jobs-and-following-your-passion/)

------
andyidsinga
This was a great post. It really reminded me of Malcolm Gladwell's 10000 hour
rule.

So in relative terms (ex. rate of learning) I can be worse than others at
something, but in absolute terms I can be much better.

Its a very interesting equation that seems to hold true for many things.

Cheers!

------
samd
This is similar to John Nunemaker's fantastic talk/blog-post called _I Have No
Talent._

Here's his post: [http://railstips.org/blog/archives/2010/01/12/i-have-no-
tale...](http://railstips.org/blog/archives/2010/01/12/i-have-no-talent/) and
slides: [http://railstips.org/blog/archives/2010/04/18/i-have-no-
tale...](http://railstips.org/blog/archives/2010/04/18/i-have-no-talent-
redux/)

------
parbo
Of course there is talent. Talent is when you're good at something without
having done it before. Perseverance is required to become great, talent is
optional. Being talented may trigger the passion required to persevere.

~~~
crocowhile
I agree. If you don't believe there is such a thing as talent, it means you
never met anyone really talented.

------
mgkimsal
"You will look around and find other people at your age who are way better
than you at playing guitar, skating or singing. How can you possibly be as
good as them? They must have a talent for it! But in reality, all they did was
starting earlier than you or have been spending more time doing it."

Hogwash. I started singing and playing guitar at the same time as some friends
of mine. We spent the same amount of time - if anything, I probably spent
_more_ time than they did. They got better. I didn't - well, not to the same
degree as they did (I'm not _bad_ but nowhere near what some of them can do).

~~~
heyitsnick
Is it at least not possible that your friends used their learning time better
than you? They push themselves harder, it was more active, present, focused
time?

~~~
mgkimsal
I was going to mention that. There's certainly something to the notion of
"knowing how to practice" or more generally, "knowing how to learn". I think
that's pretty obvious to most people, and further goes against the OP blanket
statement that "spending more time doing it" yields the same results.

------
scrame
I've long thought talent was akin to "potential energy", some people do seem
to have an aptitude for math, or music, or art, but it really doesn't go
anywhere unless they work through and develop it. Talent is a yardstick for
saying "you could go far doing this", but certainly has nothing to do with
what people actually do. In a sense, its just a measure of peoples future
disappointment with your "gift".

What people usually mean, when they talk "talent" is technical ability, and
that is only achieved through practice. If someone has the discipline and
patience to work through the painful parts of developing that skill.

Often, someone with "talent" will be called that because the early and
introductory steps will seem easier for them than most people just being
introduced to the subject, but that causes the paradox of being lazy by
resting on their laurels. The difficult and advanced parts are still
difficult, but the average person working through them will find it closer to
a linear increase difficulty, whereas the one with "talent" for it will
suddenly be at a steep curve, even if it is the same curve as for everyone,
just because they have only been exposed to the easy parts so far.

Natually, this is a generalization, and some things (especially physical
feats) really have a lot to do with genes and environment, but nothing in the
end beats plain old practice.

I think the real talent is being able to find joy and fun in what you are
doing so that the painful and tedious parts don't seem daunting at all. Or, at
least surmountable.

------
pmichaud
I think some people do have predispositions toward certain classes of
activity, but I think the message is right on: you get good by working, and
working, and working.

~~~
bennyk
Some people have a natural way of seeing things but like a muscle it only gets
stronger with repetitive use.

------
sort3d
I think an important aspect of this discussion is what your goal is. If you're
measuring success by results achieved then some amount of talent is necessary
though not sufficient. If you're measuring success by happiness then talent
seems less important. If you enjoy spending time at something that you are
terrible at and can sustain yourself, more power to you.

------
amitvjtimub
But what if you don't have talent to know how to be passionate about
something? :)

Right amount of talent in right environment drives passion that further hones
the talent. And the cycle continues.Somewhere down the line you have so much
passion that right environment doesn't matter.

------
mhartl
Arnold and Bill both like to sing. Arnold sings in several groups (including a
chorus), takes voice and ear-training lessons, and continually strives to
improve. Bill sings in the same chorus as Arnold, but otherwise he doesn't
practice. Nevertheless, Bill is a _much_ better singer than Arnold.

If you haven't ever seen this phenomenon, you simply don't have much
experience with activities that require both talent _and_ skill in order to
excel. You can't reach the highest levels without practice—Bill could never
compete with Charlie, who has Bill's talent _and_ works as hard as Arnold—but
that's not enough. Talent and practice are both _necessary_ to be the best,
but neither one alone is sufficient.

------
spyder
So this article says that every people is equal and things like savant
syndrome doesn't exists (
[http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=+savant&aq=f](http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=+savant&aq=f)
).

------
RockyMcNuts
Maybe given training anyone can recall 100 digits.

However, given an equal amount of training, some people will recall
significantly more numbers than others.

"The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that's
the way to bet."

------
bufordtwain
I totally disagree with this article. Some people are naturally better at some
things than others. Sure, it helps if you work at something and are focused.
But when it comes to doing something of difficulty, some people just "get it"
and others... not so much. For example, there are people who get math and
those who don't. For the ones who don't it seems that no amount of trying will
allow them to understand certain concepts. Based on personal observation.

------
yoak
My wife, suspecting that there is no such thing as inborn rather than
developed talent, ran an experiment. She took something she was terrible at
even after some fiddling -- drawing. She sucked at it. Her stick figures
weren't very compelling.

She set out to learn how. Over the span of about two years with a lot of work
she got to be amazing at it, and painting as well. She now all the time hears
how she has such an _amazing_ (previously undeveloped) talent.

------
Havoc
The calculation experiment ignores the learning curve effect Something like
this would provide a more accurate result.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects#The_ex...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects#The_experience_curve)

Formulas don't make for good blogging though.

As for the talent angle: I'd rather phrase it as "talent exists, but its
useless unless applied in conjunction with effort & passion".

------
alexwestholm
This is exactly why smart people can sometimes be surpassed by their
intellectual inferiors in fields that they don't care about.

------
sundresh
I don't really buy the statement that "there is no talent." The fact of the
matter is, some people pick up on a given skill and attain a higher level of
competence at it more easily than others. But this doesn't matter all that
much, because being "merely" competent rather than "talented" is usually good
enough for most things in life.

------
jchonphoenix
Actually, this expertise is a rather well studied topic in cognitive
psychology. If I remember correctly, people become experts after 10,000 hours
of practice.

Additionally, there is very little variation due to talent. Most "talent"
comes purely from practice.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, this just what I remember from lecture
in my cog psych class.

------
hammock
This kid must be so young so as not to have learned about diminishing marginal
returns. The average cost curve of computer skill acquisition is decreasing
once you get on the back end of it (the "expert" range) so of course your
average cost per skill is higher than someone who has less skill.

------
w1ntermute
> I’ve spent tons of hours in front of my computer and very often I don’t
> learn anything new or create something different.

Law of diminishing returns...you've already picked all the low-hanging fruit,
so of course it's going to take more time for you to learn something new.

------
mhb
This dog did not lift weights for 10,000 hours in order to look like this.

[http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?...](http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=67f15c17-2717-4022-bb76-1b982456e793)

------
powera
I was giving my neighbors tech support for their computer when I was 2 and a
half. Is that because of all the pre-natal time I spend in front of an Apple
IIe?

Just because this guy doesn't think he has a talent doesn't mean that nobody
does.

------
Mithrandir
Related discussion on Slashdot (
[http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/10/25/2230205/The-
Futur...](http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/10/25/2230205/The-Future-of-
the-Most-Important-Human-Brain) )

------
bd
results = talent x effort

~~~
maguay
Or maybe, in the line of thinking in this essay:

results = effort x time

~~~
bd
Yes, but according to my experience, this essay is incorrect in assuming that
talent doesn't matter [1].

So if you really want to be more precise:

    
    
       results = talent x effort x time
    

Which means, talent is multiplier. If you take multiple people with different
amounts of talent, let them work for equal amount of time on something with
equal intensity and focus, you will get very different results.

\----

[1] All people from my surroundings that are top performers are both
incredibly talented and put in insane amounts of efforts.

~~~
lilitu88
I agree with the equation as well. Effort can make up for less talent the same
way talented people may require less effort than others to achieve the same
result.

Put a zero in any of those and it all goes away.

results = 0 x effort x time results = talent x 0 x time ... etc will still be
zero

No effort (or very little) even if you have talent or no talent (or very
little) even if you make a huge effort will probably not get you very far.

------
acex
your talent 'for computers' drove you to the computers in the first place. you
speak of computer knowledge you acquired.

------
revorad
This is not much different from the blog post yesterday about the semantics of
"entrepreneurship". Who cares? JFDI

------
anigbrowl
“Wow, you really have a passion there!”

------
sliverstorm
Only Zuul.

------
DisposaBoy
Before we can begin to discuss "what exists" we must first discuss "what".

That is to say. We must first discuss what is talent? What counts as talent?
What doesn't? because until then I feel that many of our ideas are going to be
based on our own slight understanding and ideas about talent.

For me, I have no idea what talent is the same way i have no idea what a skill
is because it all seems so arbitrary.

~~~
pingswept
I have the same feeling. There's another comment that says "[Usain Bolt] has
little talent, and his success is almost purely a combination genetics and
hard work (eating + training)." To me, once you take out genetics, eating, and
training, there's nothing left.

