7 ms·

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 com

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.

eof 16y 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.
jscore 16y ago
Or outrun Usain Bolt
- sahillavingia 16y ago
  True, but he has little talent, and his success is almost purely a combination genetics and hard work (eating + training).
  - jfb 16y ago
    You don't think that there is significant technique to be mastered in world-class athletics like that?
    - sahillavingia 16y ago
      That's mostly the trainer's job, I would think.
      - rcd 16y ago
        Mostly the trainer's job to hone technique, despite not competing? That doesn't sound right. You might want to make your point more explicitly.
    - sliverstorm 16y ago
      There are of course some techniques like how you set up at the line, but running is one of our most basic functions. I am not a professional runner, but I really would expect high level running technique to consist mostly of fundamental 'dos' and 'donts' (i.e. what many sports would call 'good form'), rather than secret techniques and tricks that take old sages decades to master.
edanm 16y 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 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!”"
- eof 16y 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?
  - sudont 16y ago
    Well, what’s wrong with practicing your whole life to only be in the very-good, the excellent? There’s only 5-10 people who are absolute heroes in any discipline. It’s like saying: "I’m not going to be Einstein, so why bother learning physics if I’ll only author 60 papers?"(insert correct number)
    - eof 16y ago
      There is nothing wrong with it. The OP says "there is no talent." I was just agreeing with the argument that talent, in fact, does exist (and matter).
  - jcro41 16y ago
    According to a study done with violin players, highly structured practice is what separates the great from the very-good. Those that were very good but didn't practice as much ended up becoming violin teachers: http://imgur.com/Wxjqa.png http://imgur.com/Wxjqa.png. What's also striking is that amateurs practice far, far less than the best: http://imgur.com/vIB6i.png http://imgur.com/vIB6i.png. While they may have practiced for the same number of years (e.g., from 4 years old to 20 years old), the amount per day was substantially less. This is from "The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance": http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/gel/EricssonDeliberatePracticePR93.pdf http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/gel/EricssonDeliberatePracti..., pages 17 and 21, respectively.
tspiteri 16y 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.
NyxWulf 16y 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.
tokenadult 16y 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 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 16y 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.

eof 16y 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.

jscore 16y ago

Or outrun Usain Bolt

sahillavingia 16y ago
True, but he has little talent, and his success is almost purely a combination genetics and hard work (eating + training).
- jfb 16y ago
  You don't think that there is significant technique to be mastered in world-class athletics like that?
  - sahillavingia 16y ago
    That's mostly the trainer's job, I would think.
    - rcd 16y ago
      Mostly the trainer's job to hone technique, despite not competing? That doesn't sound right. You might want to make your point more explicitly.
  - sliverstorm 16y ago
    There are of course some techniques like how you set up at the line, but running is one of our most basic functions. I am not a professional runner, but I really would expect high level running technique to consist mostly of fundamental 'dos' and 'donts' (i.e. what many sports would call 'good form'), rather than secret techniques and tricks that take old sages decades to master.

edanm 16y 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 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!”"

eof 16y 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?
- sudont 16y ago
  Well, what’s wrong with practicing your whole life to only be in the very-good, the excellent? There’s only 5-10 people who are absolute heroes in any discipline. It’s like saying: "I’m not going to be Einstein, so why bother learning physics if I’ll only author 60 papers?"(insert correct number)
  - eof 16y ago
    There is nothing wrong with it. The OP says "there is no talent." I was just agreeing with the argument that talent, in fact, does exist (and matter).
- jcro41 16y ago
  According to a study done with violin players, highly structured practice is what separates the great from the very-good. Those that were very good but didn't practice as much ended up becoming violin teachers: http://imgur.com/Wxjqa.png http://imgur.com/Wxjqa.png. What's also striking is that amateurs practice far, far less than the best: http://imgur.com/vIB6i.png http://imgur.com/vIB6i.png. While they may have practiced for the same number of years (e.g., from 4 years old to 20 years old), the amount per day was substantially less. This is from "The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance": http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/gel/EricssonDeliberatePracticePR93.pdf http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/gel/EricssonDeliberatePracti..., pages 17 and 21, respectively.

tspiteri 16y 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.

NyxWulf 16y 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.

tokenadult 16y 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 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 16y 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.