2 ms·

> talent is also a matter of simple luck. There's no proof to this [0]. For many of us, talent is a matter of hard work and dedication. [0] https://www.scient

> talent is also a matter of simple luck. There's no proof to this [0]. For many of us, talent is a matter of hard work and dedication. [0] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-innate-talent-a-myth/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-innate-talent-...

jmull 9y ago
You're making a semantic argument. That's often fine, but is irrelevant in this case. To the extent talent is innate, it's a matter of luck. To the extent it takes thousands of hours of practice, well... how is it that one has the opportunity and ability to practice some thing for thousands of hours? You generally need a some mixture of support and dedication. Your level of support is clearly a matter of luck... and the qualities of dedication and working hard must be either be skills that you have to acquire somehow or innate talents. Which again, both seem to be matters of luck. To me, it seems like a fools game to try to find reasons to justify why you're more deserving of this or that than someone else. The deeper you dig, the less reasons you can find to actually feel superior (or inferior, for that matter).
colomon 9y ago
What if the ability and dedication to work hard also the luck of the genetic shuffle? I started seriously thinking about this when reading up on autism a few years back. (I don't have any answers, just a nagging suspicion that pretty much everyone is getting these sorts of moral questions wrong. I mean, if I don't get any credit for working hard to create a modestly successful very small business, why should I get the blame for anything I do?)
pedrosorio 9y ago
This obviously depends on the definition of talent. If talent is taken from the dictionary definition: "the natural endowments of a person" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/talent https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/talent) then obviously hard work has nothing to do with it (by definition) and therefore it is just pure luck - no one chooses their genes. I guess what you meant to argue is that innate talent doesn't exist ("for many of us") and therefore, talking about expertise and success ("talent") depends mostly on hard work, and not on some "luck of the genetic lottery". However, if you read past the 4th paragraph in your linked article, you'll find the "innate talent doesn't exist" view is not supported at all: "Ericsson and Pool gloss over or omit critical details of research they review that undermine the anti-talent argument" "Ericsson and Pool also leave out a good deal of evidence that runs counter to the anti-talent argument. For example, they claim that professional baseball players have “no better eyesight than an average person,” but there is evidence to suggest otherwise." "Another notable omission from Peak is a study of 18 prodigies by Joanne Ruthsatz and colleagues—to date, the largest study of the intellectual abilities of prodigies. (Given the rarity of prodigies, a sample size of 18 is very large in this area of research.) The researchers gave the prodigies a standardized IQ test, and found that all scored very high on working memory (most were above the 99th percentile, and the average score for the sample was in the top 1%). A major factor underlying the ability to acquire complex skills, working memory is substantially heritable." "There is also no discussion of the landmark Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (...) Now in its forty-fifth year, this longitudinal study has revealed that, even in the top 1%, cognitive ability in childhood is a significant predictor of objective occupational achievements in adulthood, such as earning advanced degrees, publishing scientific articles, and patent awards." "Based on our own evaluation of the evidence, we argue in a recent Psychological Bulletin article that training is necessary to become an expert, but that genetic factors may play an important role at all levels of expertise, from beginner to elite."

jmull 9y ago

You're making a semantic argument. That's often fine, but is irrelevant in this case. To the extent talent is innate, it's a matter of luck. To the extent it takes thousands of hours of practice, well... how is it that one has the opportunity and ability to practice some thing for thousands of hours? You generally need a some mixture of support and dedication. Your level of support is clearly a matter of luck... and the qualities of dedication and working hard must be either be skills that you have to acquire somehow or innate talents. Which again, both seem to be matters of luck. To me, it seems like a fools game to try to find reasons to justify why you're more deserving of this or that than someone else. The deeper you dig, the less reasons you can find to actually feel superior (or inferior, for that matter).

colomon 9y ago

What if the ability and dedication to work hard also the luck of the genetic shuffle? I started seriously thinking about this when reading up on autism a few years back. (I don't have any answers, just a nagging suspicion that pretty much everyone is getting these sorts of moral questions wrong. I mean, if I don't get any credit for working hard to create a modestly successful very small business, why should I get the blame for anything I do?)

pedrosorio 9y ago

This obviously depends on the definition of talent. If talent is taken from the dictionary definition: "the natural endowments of a person" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/talent https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/talent) then obviously hard work has nothing to do with it (by definition) and therefore it is just pure luck - no one chooses their genes. I guess what you meant to argue is that innate talent doesn't exist ("for many of us") and therefore, talking about expertise and success ("talent") depends mostly on hard work, and not on some "luck of the genetic lottery". However, if you read past the 4th paragraph in your linked article, you'll find the "innate talent doesn't exist" view is not supported at all: "Ericsson and Pool gloss over or omit critical details of research they review that undermine the anti-talent argument" "Ericsson and Pool also leave out a good deal of evidence that runs counter to the anti-talent argument. For example, they claim that professional baseball players have “no better eyesight than an average person,” but there is evidence to suggest otherwise." "Another notable omission from Peak is a study of 18 prodigies by Joanne Ruthsatz and colleagues—to date, the largest study of the intellectual abilities of prodigies. (Given the rarity of prodigies, a sample size of 18 is very large in this area of research.) The researchers gave the prodigies a standardized IQ test, and found that all scored very high on working memory (most were above the 99th percentile, and the average score for the sample was in the top 1%). A major factor underlying the ability to acquire complex skills, working memory is substantially heritable." "There is also no discussion of the landmark Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (...) Now in its forty-fifth year, this longitudinal study has revealed that, even in the top 1%, cognitive ability in childhood is a significant predictor of objective occupational achievements in adulthood, such as earning advanced degrees, publishing scientific articles, and patent awards." "Based on our own evaluation of the evidence, we argue in a recent Psychological Bulletin article that training is necessary to become an expert, but that genetic factors may play an important role at all levels of expertise, from beginner to elite."