5 ms·

Well the idea is what you perceive as talent is actually a lot of hard work.

by mentos 11y ago

coldtea 11y ago
How about the talent is exactly in being able to put the hard work? That (determination, persistence etc for a particular task) might be something people are born with, or something people develop young and can't much change it.
- mentos 11y ago
  >How about the talent is exactly in being able to put the hard work? And maybe part of putting in the hard work is coming to realize that its not all about talent..
- RogerL 11y ago
  I'm me. I'm more talented at some things than other, even the same domain: I'm far, far better at piano than classical guitar despite having worked far more on the latter. So, is the theory that I work hard than me? Or, maybe I work less hard than me? Doesn't make sense. There are talent differences independent of levels of work. This is trivially true.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >So, is the theory that I work hard than me? Or, maybe I work less hard than me? Doesn't make sense. Looks like you missed the whole (emphasis mine): "That (determination, persistence etc FOR A PARTICULAR TASK)" You might have worked more hours, but with less effectiveness (because guitar doesn't inspire you etc).
waterlesscloud 11y ago
Great. So who is your example of that?
- Tenhundfeld 11y ago
  What? If you accept the premise that talent is actually the capacity/inclination to work harder and practice more, then no, you won't find anyone at the top of their field who overcame a lack of talent. That's the point. If you're defining talent as some type of natural ability to be good at a learned skill, like playing an instrument, then I think there are many examples of people who weren't especially good at first but became great. For example, Michael Jordan was good but not outstanding at basketball in high school. He wasn't actually "cut" from his high school team, as the urban legend is told, but as a sophomore, he was put on the JV team when at least one other sophomore was put on varsity. He worked harder and practiced more than others to get better. There are many anecdotes of other players, team trainers, etc., describing him as the "hardest working" and "most competitive" player they've ever met. Did he have some natural ability at basketball? Probably. But people who are close to him attribute his talent to his drive to be better than absolutely everyone else. Another example is Jimi Hendrix. As a young boy, he carried around a broom and would pretend to play it as a guitar. When he finally got a guitar, he did not immediately belt out Purple Haze. He initially struggled with it as all new players do. Supposedly, he'd practice for several hours every day, often repeating a single note until he could make it sound exactly like a song on the radio. He slept with his guitar. He took it with him everywhere, practicing scales in any spare moments. He'd often go see blues musicians and pepper them with questions about technique. So, did he have some natural ability for the guitar? Probably. But stories from his early life point to his talent being a love of the guitar and a strong desire to master it, in part to escape poverty. I think the point of all of this is that learned skills take time to master. There are obviously people for whom learning it is easier or harder, and there are physical and intellectual traits that can limit or promote mastery. But for most people, the key differentiator is practice and hard work. Not everyone can become a concert pianist, but every concert pianist has worked extremely hard to achieve mastery. And most people who practice for hours every day can become very, very good – good enough to play in a band, learn (almost) any song they want, enjoy the experience of entertaining friends and family, good enough for the average person to watch them play and think, "She's so talented at the piano."
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
tetraodonpuffer 11y ago
the talent part is being able to convert hard work in meaningful ongoing gains: if you get to the point where you work hard for your maximum amount of productive hours a day and you can't improve any further, there's nothing else you can do. This is applicable to music, sports, anything really. As much as the genetically blessed people like to say that there is no such thing as luck or talent, in the end we are not all born equal, and some people have something that others don't and can use it to reach levels that others can't, and some people that have it don't have the luck to have had the right parents and environment to be able to develop it fully. Now this is not saying that one can't usually become reasonably competent at something via hard work, that is definitely possible, it's how we're all making a living after all, we are reasonably competent at our jobs. However for fields where the only paying jobs go to the absolute best, being reasonably competent is not enough. According to wikipedia in 2007 there were only 117 US orchestras with a bugdget of 2.5 million US dollars (which to me implies being able to offer a reasonable yearly salary to their members, and even then I am sure most players still have to hustle for lessons and so on to make rent), now assume you are a harp player, that means that there are only about 250 full time professional positions for your instrument in the whole country, or a bassoon player, that would be maybe 400. Now imagine that there were only 400 software jobs available in the US, do you think that being 'reasonable competent' at programming would be enough to get that job? That's where talent comes in, talent alone is not enough, you also need hard work, but hard work alone will never get you there, just like hard work alone will never get you running a sub 10 second 100m or a 4 minute mile. This does not fit well in the "everybody can do it, if you work hard enough" narrative (which has the unfortunate flip side of "you didn't make it, therefore it's your fault"), but in the end unfortunately that's how it is, we are not all born equal or with equal chances, we can do our best, but we all have to accept that sometimes our best is not just going to be as good as somebody else's for reasons not under anybody's control.

Well the idea is what you perceive as talent is actually a lot of hard work.

by mentos 11y ago

Well the idea is what you perceive as talent is actually a lot of hard work.

How about the talent is exactly in being able to put the hard work? That (determination, persistence etc for a particular task) might be something people are born with, or something people develop young and can't much change it.

mentos 11y ago
>How about the talent is exactly in being able to put the hard work? And maybe part of putting in the hard work is coming to realize that its not all about talent..
RogerL 11y ago
I'm me. I'm more talented at some things than other, even the same domain: I'm far, far better at piano than classical guitar despite having worked far more on the latter. So, is the theory that I work hard than me? Or, maybe I work less hard than me? Doesn't make sense. There are talent differences independent of levels of work. This is trivially true.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >So, is the theory that I work hard than me? Or, maybe I work less hard than me? Doesn't make sense. Looks like you missed the whole (emphasis mine): "That (determination, persistence etc FOR A PARTICULAR TASK)" You might have worked more hours, but with less effectiveness (because guitar doesn't inspire you etc).

waterlesscloud 11y ago

Great. So who is your example of that?

Tenhundfeld 11y ago
What? If you accept the premise that talent is actually the capacity/inclination to work harder and practice more, then no, you won't find anyone at the top of their field who overcame a lack of talent. That's the point. If you're defining talent as some type of natural ability to be good at a learned skill, like playing an instrument, then I think there are many examples of people who weren't especially good at first but became great. For example, Michael Jordan was good but not outstanding at basketball in high school. He wasn't actually "cut" from his high school team, as the urban legend is told, but as a sophomore, he was put on the JV team when at least one other sophomore was put on varsity. He worked harder and practiced more than others to get better. There are many anecdotes of other players, team trainers, etc., describing him as the "hardest working" and "most competitive" player they've ever met. Did he have some natural ability at basketball? Probably. But people who are close to him attribute his talent to his drive to be better than absolutely everyone else. Another example is Jimi Hendrix. As a young boy, he carried around a broom and would pretend to play it as a guitar. When he finally got a guitar, he did not immediately belt out Purple Haze. He initially struggled with it as all new players do. Supposedly, he'd practice for several hours every day, often repeating a single note until he could make it sound exactly like a song on the radio. He slept with his guitar. He took it with him everywhere, practicing scales in any spare moments. He'd often go see blues musicians and pepper them with questions about technique. So, did he have some natural ability for the guitar? Probably. But stories from his early life point to his talent being a love of the guitar and a strong desire to master it, in part to escape poverty. I think the point of all of this is that learned skills take time to master. There are obviously people for whom learning it is easier or harder, and there are physical and intellectual traits that can limit or promote mastery. But for most people, the key differentiator is practice and hard work. Not everyone can become a concert pianist, but every concert pianist has worked extremely hard to achieve mastery. And most people who practice for hours every day can become very, very good – good enough to play in a band, learn (almost) any song they want, enjoy the experience of entertaining friends and family, good enough for the average person to watch them play and think, "She's so talented at the piano."
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

tetraodonpuffer 11y ago

the talent part is being able to convert hard work in meaningful ongoing gains: if you get to the point where you work hard for your maximum amount of productive hours a day and you can't improve any further, there's nothing else you can do. This is applicable to music, sports, anything really. As much as the genetically blessed people like to say that there is no such thing as luck or talent, in the end we are not all born equal, and some people have something that others don't and can use it to reach levels that others can't, and some people that have it don't have the luck to have had the right parents and environment to be able to develop it fully. Now this is not saying that one can't usually become reasonably competent at something via hard work, that is definitely possible, it's how we're all making a living after all, we are reasonably competent at our jobs. However for fields where the only paying jobs go to the absolute best, being reasonably competent is not enough. According to wikipedia in 2007 there were only 117 US orchestras with a bugdget of 2.5 million US dollars (which to me implies being able to offer a reasonable yearly salary to their members, and even then I am sure most players still have to hustle for lessons and so on to make rent), now assume you are a harp player, that means that there are only about 250 full time professional positions for your instrument in the whole country, or a bassoon player, that would be maybe 400. Now imagine that there were only 400 software jobs available in the US, do you think that being 'reasonable competent' at programming would be enough to get that job? That's where talent comes in, talent alone is not enough, you also need hard work, but hard work alone will never get you there, just like hard work alone will never get you running a sub 10 second 100m or a 4 minute mile. This does not fit well in the "everybody can do it, if you work hard enough" narrative (which has the unfortunate flip side of "you didn't make it, therefore it's your fault"), but in the end unfortunately that's how it is, we are not all born equal or with equal chances, we can do our best, but we all have to accept that sometimes our best is not just going to be as good as somebody else's for reasons not under anybody's control.