There is no talent

http://timeless.judofyr.net/there-is-no-talent

by judofyr • 16 years ago

158 140 16 years ago

timeless.judofyr.net

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."

_delirium3• 16 years ago

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.

pmichaud• 16 years ago

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• 16 years ago

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

antareus• 16 years ago

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.

bd2• 16 years ago

results = talent x effort

maguay2• 16 years ago

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

results = effort x time

bd2• 16 years ago

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.

lukeschlather• 16 years ago

results = log(effort x time)

alexwestholm• 16 years ago

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

emehrkay4• 16 years ago

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• 16 years ago

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

emehrkay4• 16 years ago

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...)

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"

brm• 16 years ago

that difference... innate or easier understanding + the ability to execute it IS talent

emehrkay4• 16 years ago

I feel that things could be broken down so that anyone could understand. Those scenes in movies where the teacher finally breaks through to the kids by relating the subject matter to something that they care about may seem like bs, but I feel that approach really works. I think that is the foundation of the argument for smaller classroom sizes -- the teach can focus in on how to target each student's learning style instead of a watered down general approach. The desire to execute isn't something that could be given or taught to someone though.

I have the same feeling about luck as I do with talent. I read the famous quote "luck is when opportunity meets preparedness" and I've lived that way since.

jameskilton• 16 years ago

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.

jscore• 16 years ago

Or outrun Usain Bolt

sahillavingia2• 16 years ago

True, but he has little talent, and his success is almost purely a combination genetics and hard work (eating + training).

edanm2• 16 years ago

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!”"

eof3• 16 years ago

He doesn't know, but many many people have composed a lot of music, many with as much passion as the OP has put into computers; but Mozart and a handful of others stand out as something above and beyond. What, if not talent, is what separates the great from the very-good?

cynicalkane4• 16 years ago

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.

eof3• 16 years ago

This is not strictly an opinion; this is backed by experiment and logic.

It might be arguable that there are two main areas of talent; and success in a field is a function of passion in a field and the underlying aptitude in those two modes of talent.

Those areas being linear and parallel thinking. A really strong linear thinker may be able to be equally successful as a mathematician, programmer, or mechanical engineer; and a strong parallel thinker might a great poet, painter or social worker.

tspiteri• 16 years ago

I agree with you. I don't know why some people have no trouble believing that you have to be the right size to be a top weight lifter, and that you have to be the different right size to be a top marathon runner, but then they believe that everyone has got what it takes to be a top musician or top mathematician.

NyxWulf2• 16 years ago

There are two categories mentioned. Josh Groban and Mozart are based on some level of "skill" where Strongest Man and Tour de france have a physiological or genetic component. That may or may not be present within singing. As mentioned in my other response, deliberate practice and coaching are what seem to determine skill level. Also discussed in talent is overrated is the notion that deliberate practice seems to have a lifetime cumulative effect. So you probably can't catch up with a Groban or Tiger Woods simply because they have such a large cumulative head start in their fields.

Genetic potential is something else entirely. It's hard to say how much of being a strong man or winning the tour de france is genetic, but likely the effect of genetics is less than we typically think. As an example in the book mentioned, they discuss the change in mile times since the four minute barrier was broken. The amount of people who can run a four minute mile now cannot be due to evolutionary changes in that brief period but is much more likely to be caused by improvements in teaching and training methods.

Anyway again, I highly recommend "Talent is Overrated" by Geoff Colvin. These issues are covered in depth.

tokenadult2• 16 years ago

I could try my entire life and I will never be able to sing like Josh Groban

Have you tried the experiment? The really striking thing about K. Anders Ericsson's research

http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.hp.html

(which is the research underlying many articles and blog posts on this subject) is that Ericsson found results that no other researcher predicted before trying the experiments. In one case, Ericsson developed a training program for undergraduates to increase their "digit span" from the typical seven digits to more than 100 digits. That's a striking result, because "digit span" used to be regarded as a reliable proxy for IQ. (There are still IQ tests that have a digit span item as part of the item content.) Scientists who obtain surprising, replicated results show that sometimes our intuition about how the world works needs correction from factual observations.

zuckerborg• 16 years ago

I don't the think this article is 100% incorrect. Here's why: the author of the article is, in actuality, talentless. He has no talent. That part is true. He even states that the people impressed with his computer skills are those without any skills themselves. They were simply impressed by the 'magic' he was able to do with something they didn't understand. He's correct in understanding this his feeble skills are no indicative of any real talent. He is average in every sense of the word. He got that right.

acex• 16 years ago

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

doki_pen• 16 years ago

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.

mgkimsal2• 16 years ago

"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• 16 years ago

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?

mgkimsal2• 16 years ago

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.

hitonagashi• 16 years ago

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.

andyidsinga3• 16 years ago

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 ;)

j_baker2• 16 years ago

What annoys me most isn't the idea that anyone can do anything if they try hard enough. It's the corollary to it: if someone isn't successful, then they just aren't trying hard enough. People tend to underestimate the impact that outside influences can have.

mechanical_fish• 16 years ago

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• 16 years ago

> 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• 16 years ago

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

vannevar• 16 years ago

Actually, there's quite a lot of evidence that mindless repetition greatly benefits learning, at least in terms of the actions being repeated. The problem is that since we tend to enjoy activities we are good at, and we are much more likely to repeat an activity we enjoy, talent in fact guides our learning process: we tend to practice the things we're already good at and shy away from practicing the things for which we lack talent.

If by 'mindful practice' you mean deliberately practicing things we do poorly at (because we don't have natural talent for them), then I agree that proficiency can be developed. But of course given equal effort the one with the greater natural talent will perform better. And in the ordinary course of life, they will also tend to practice their talents more (since they get more gratification from it) and magnify their superiority still further.

The statement 'there is no talent' is nonsense.

icegreentea• 16 years ago

Largely agree with you here. But I actually think the most important talent is being good at practicing. This ties in a bit with self-analyzing and self-correcting, but also the ability to put yourself through crushing amounts of practice over and over.

The pinnacle of human performance is formed by the intersection of those naturally talented, those who are passionate, and those who have the talent for practicing.

I put talent for practicing separate from passionate just really based on that lovely coach's slogan 'practice makes nothing, perfect practices makes perfect'.

Flankk• 16 years ago

You make a good point but I have a few qualms. I agree that there exist a lot of passionate guitarists who play poorly. Speaking as a guitarist, guitar is an extremely difficult instrument to learn to play and master. The amount of time involved in learning to play guitar and play it well is huge. I argue that passionate but untalented people only exist because they are partway through the learning process or because of a loose definition of passion.

sausagefeet2• 16 years ago

Does anyone have a good definition of talent?

cloudbrain• 16 years ago

Malcolm Gladwell defined talent as "the love of practicing". That's the best definition I've heard.

bufordtwain2• 16 years ago

"A special natural ability or aptitude"

dawgr• 16 years ago

I agree with you. To me it seems naive to say there is no talent. If humans can play music because our DNA allows us to do so while monkeys can't do the same, why is not possible that the DNA responsible for this varies slightly from person to person making some people better than others? I said music, but the same applies to reflexes in soccer or planning ahead in chess.

rchi• 16 years ago

It's ridiculous to say that there is no talent. obviously, talent, passion, zeitgeist, deliberate practice, luck etc all matter. each factor in your favour nudges your probability towards success.

If we could live for a million years, then talent probably doesn't matter compared to deliberate practice even in fields such as pure mathematics. But life is short and that in many fields, success is relative (ie good is irrelevant, you need to be top 1 %). In those cases, once you are behind, the probability of catching up to other people in your field is slim.

blahedo• 16 years ago

"At the risk of overgeneralizing, the most important talent is meta-analysis. You have to be able to self-analyze and self-correct."

I disagree with the OP but this I can get behind. I teach at the college level, and I have seen, repeatedly, students who put in a lot of effort but get nowhere. Not a ton, but always a few each year. There's also almost always a much larger group that maybe muddle along to a passing grade but don't understand why they don't understand more.

What both groups have in common is an inability to learn from their own errors. They can listen to what I say, and absorb some of it, and they can read the book, and absorb some of it, and after they've gotten something wrong they can come back, talk to me or a tutor, and absorb a little more. (Maybe.) But the more productive route by far is to look at the specific thing they got wrong, and learn from that, "fix" the specific misunderstanding that misled them. And whether by inclination or ability, they don't do that. And despite spending big chunks of time on my class, they don't do very well.

I do think there is such a thing as native talent. There pretty much has to be. But I think that the skill of meta-analysis can account for a large percentage (not all) of what is usually chalked up to "talent".

mpk• 16 years ago

I think the term you are looking for is 'Metacognition' or 'Meta-cognitive reasoning'. It boils down to being aware of what you are reasoning about (and subsequently reasoning about that).

On a practical level it's about analyzing your own reasoning when performing an operation and changing your reasoning based on the results of the reasoning you applied to the operation.

Being able to do 'thinking about thinking' is generally considered a good indication of sentience (whatever that might be).

timdellinger• 16 years ago

I'll highlight an interesting phenomenon with respect to your assertion that the most important talent is meta-analysis: the effect of a coach.

Some people have no capacity at all for meta-analysis, but succeed because they have a great coach. Someone to give them direction and feedback and strategy and who will make sure they are making maximum use of their opportunities.

This cuts both ways: marginal musicians can have great managers and producers that will insure success for (seemingly) any warm body that fits the mold. Hence the "boy band". Similarly, fantastic musicians that don't always see the bigger picture and have their finger on the pulse of the industry might fail. (substitute any endeavor for "music" in this case).

notsosmart• 16 years ago

The bottom line is that if you work hard enough you can compensate somewhat for lack of talent. You probably won't be the next Mozart or Einstein of your field, but the good news is that you don't have to be inorder to be very successful.

j_baker2• 16 years ago

"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."

I'm kind of reminded of Malcom Gladwell's "Late Bloomers" piece[1]. Some people take very little time to become good. Some others learn by sheer trial and error, and it takes them a long time. Like as in decades.

[1] http://www.gladwell.com/2008/2008_10_20_a_latebloomers.html

samd• 16 years ago

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... and slides: http://railstips.org/blog/archives/2010/04/18/i-have-no-tale...

roadnottaken• 16 years ago

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.

bijanbwb• 16 years ago

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."

parbo• 16 years ago

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• 16 years ago

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

zachallaun• 16 years ago

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.

lwhi5• 16 years ago

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.

rokhayakebe2• 16 years ago

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

lwhi5• 16 years ago

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.

pjscott• 16 years ago

Sure. I'd say that, all other things being equal, being tall gives an advantage to a basketball player. Therefore under lwhi's definition of talent, it counts. Why wouldn't it?

I realize this may not match up with what people usually mean when they say talent, but I think this definition is more consistent and useful.

Volscio2• 16 years ago

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-...

NyxWulf2• 16 years ago

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• 16 years ago

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.

khafra• 16 years ago

re: "computer genius"

"Sometimes men come by the name of genius in the same way that certain insects come by the name of centipede; not because they have a hundred feet, but because most people cannot count above fourteen"

- http://lesswrong.com/lw/10o/rationality_quotes_june_2009/

revorad• 16 years ago

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

rue2• 16 years ago

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.

sort3d• 16 years ago

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.

s-phi-nl• 16 years ago

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)

RockyMcNuts• 16 years ago

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."

lsd5you• 16 years ago

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.)

amitvjtimub• 16 years ago

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.

andyidsinga3• 16 years ago

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!

qjz• 16 years ago

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].

andyidsinga3• 16 years ago

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

donaq• 16 years ago

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."

mhb• 16 years ago

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

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?...

DisposaBoy• 16 years ago

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• 16 years ago

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.

bufordtwain2• 16 years ago

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.

spyder• 16 years ago

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 ).

powera• 16 years ago

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.

Havoc• 16 years ago

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...

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".

sundresh• 16 years ago

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.

WalterBright• 16 years ago

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.

yoak• 16 years ago

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.

jchonphoenix• 16 years ago

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.

anigbrowl• 16 years ago

“Wow, you really have a passion there!”

w1ntermute• 16 years ago

> 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.

sliverstorm2• 16 years ago

Only Zuul.

Eliezer• 16 years ago

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.

Mithrandir• 16 years ago

Related discussion on Slashdot ( http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/10/25/2230205/The-Futur... )

giardini• 16 years ago

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.

mhartl• 16 years ago

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.

hammock• 16 years ago

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.

scrame• 16 years ago

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.

There is no talent

Related Stories