Talent is a Myth
Scott H Young talks about something I happen to agree with whole-heartedly. For a long time since I was young I’ve been asked how did I become such a good drawer, that it’s such a gift. But I always say that I just did it a lot.
This lie of talent, of gifted-ness has to be one of the most poisonous lies people have deceived themselves into believing. The belief that certain people, maybe even us, were born with abilities that you lack the power to replicate. Unfortunately, if you tell a big enough lie enough times, people start to believe it.
Scott breaks up the misinformation in two parts. Firstly outlining that although you may be more suited to a particular skill, or actually have a small gain in a certain area, it can’t account for any real advantage. The second part is about building the skills you don’t have.
Discrepancy of Skill
I believe at some point every person who develops a high degree of skill stumbles onto the right formula for success. Inborn talent might be able to explain small differences in skill, but it can hardly account for the huge differences present in society.
Conscious Practice
I made huge leaps in my public speaking skills because after each speech I did, I was evaluated and used those evaluations to pick out points of improvement. This iterative process meant that with just an hour of investment each week for a few months and I’ve had a few people think I had been practicing for years.
I’d like to see more discussion in this line of thinking. Can inborn talents be accounted for any great level of success in a field? Is there such a thing as inborn talent at all? Do some skills just come easier to some people than others?
The Myth Of Talent – [ScottHYoung]
Tags: 
Loading ...
Comments
Nick says on February 21st, 2007 at 10:03 am
Here’s the 5 second debunking of that: compare yourself to Michael Jordan at basketball; now compare Michael Jordan to ANY pro baseball player. There’s no amount of shooting hoops that will make you as good as Mike at basketball, and there’s no amount of batting practice that’s going to get Mike into MLB.
brandon says on February 21st, 2007 at 10:51 am
I agree with Nick. To not accept that talents exist is narrow-minded. I believe we all have talents(whether it’s a gift from god or something to do with genes) and that how good we are at something is skill. So, I believe that I have talents that have maximum potentials and that the only way to utilize those talents is to hone the skills. If I hone the skill enough, I approach the maximum level of talent I have. I call it the talent to skill ratio. Talent is not only a metric, but a function. The larger one’s potential talent, the faster honing it will be. Applied to Nick’s example, MJ may have basketball talent of 100. I have basketball talent of 20. My skill at basketball is a percentage of my talent. So, if I practice enough, I *may* get close to my talent somewhere around 19. MJ had skill of close to zilch when he was in high school. He didn’t make the team when he started. But after honing his skills, he was utilizing talent that was there. In his prime, he was probably close to utilizing 90-100% of his talent. MJ was able to hone his skills quickly because his talent is large. It would probably take my whole life to reach my maximum since my talent is smaller.
Carmen says on February 21st, 2007 at 11:15 am
Probably talents exist but you can go very far just with talent.
A teacher of mine once told that to be good at something means just that you enjoy doing it for hours and hours.
David Nesting says on February 21st, 2007 at 11:34 am
“Do some skills just come easier to some people than others?”
Isn’t that the very definition of “innate talent”?
Our brains are defined by our genes just like any other part of the body, and it seems ignorant to suggest that differences in our genes can’t allow one person’s brain to under/overperform at a certain type of task than another’s.
Ryan says on February 21st, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Talent exists, no question about that. Some people are just naturally better at some things then others. For instance, I am terrible at detail oriented thinking, so math proofing is out the window for me, and yet others just “get it”. Drives me nuts.
And yet, if I spend hours practising something, I can get good enough at it to overcome my lack of talent. I disagree with the idea that talent defines a celing.
Rather, I see talent as a sort of quotient applied to the total amount of effort required to do something. The higher your talent is, the less time it takes to become really good at it.
Seri says on February 21st, 2007 at 10:52 pm
I think this is the most preposterous — and potentially devestating — thing I’ve read in a long time. You can teach (and learn) technical skills, but you cannot teach (or learn) the “magic” that separates the truely talented from the merely well-skilled. Wayne Gretsky didn’t become the best hockey player in the world simply by practicing a lot. Ditto Ansel Adams and photography, Baryshnikov and dance — there are hundreds of examples. And while I am utterly committed to encouraging people to follow their dreams and be the best they can be, I think it’s cruel to encourage someone to follow the *wrong* dream, telling her (or him) that all s/he needs to do is work harder. Take the time to find your own unique gift and go for it, don’t settle for being second-rate at something you simply have no talent for.
Matt says on February 21st, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Talent is the result of practice. Nothing more. Notice how basketball players are slender, tennis players have toned arm muscles? Practicing creates that body. Practicing makes you “talented.” Nothing else. Repetition, repetition, repetition.
I had an argument with a sociology professor over this. I argued that we should reintroduce rote learning for things like vocabulary and grammar, foreign languages, and other such topics.
He defended his point of view by asserting that schools don’t exist to make kids smart, but to “educate” (whatever he meant by that). To expose them to things… great, expose kids to grammar, they don’t really need to learn it. Right.
Dan says on February 22nd, 2007 at 2:09 am
We (Brayer Group) deeply believe that talent is NOT inborn. More info can be found at our blog (www.OpherBrayer.com) – an example of dealing with those issues -> http://www.opherbrayer.com/my-research.html
Best regards,
Dan.
David Allsopp says on February 22nd, 2007 at 7:33 am
It seems obvious to me that inborn talent exists – just look at musical or mathematical prodigies – these people can do things at the age of 10 that most people cannot master after years of effort.
Other skills require genetic predisposition – many people could NEVER become a ballet dancer, irrespective of effort, because only some people have the right type of skeleton.
David Nesting says on February 22nd, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Matt,
If “talent” extends to physical attributes, as your comment suggests, please explain how I can, through “practice”, gain an extra foot of height so that I may compete with professional basketball athletes.
People do not all start off with exactly the same brain blueprint stamped into a variety of bodies. This should be obvious (even if we pretend smart people are really just normal people) from the fact that we see children that require special education. Surely we’re not suggesting that these children simply need more practice, or need to apply themselves more? There is no “normal baseline” brain that everyone has, except for those that have some form of discreet defect that means they need special care. Different people have different mental capabilities along a continuous curve, and the capabilities vary based on the nature of the task. Most skills still have to be learned, but if one person’s brain is predisposed to the type of task being learned, it will be much easier for that person to master and excel at it. This is innate talent.
pascal says on April 18th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Nick ,i totally disagree with the micheal jordan talent story.. mike played ball much more than baseball, and he even said it himself that he had forgotten how hard he had to work and the steps needed to become great.he just worked harder than everyone else sorry bro.. u are wrong on this one and jordan himself is the proof..