4 ms·

I'm a part-time musician and nowhere is this "native talent" more visible than in music. I've been grinding at the guitar for years and can only call myself abo

I'm a part-time musician and nowhere is this "native talent" more visible than in music. I've been grinding at the guitar for years and can only call myself above average at best. Yet, there are musicians I know who can literally pick up a brand new instrument, fiddle around for a couple of hours, and start playing intricate melodies on it all within a day. Native talent is definitely a thing and anyone who says otherwise is either lying or trying to sell you something. Doesn't mean that hard work isn't important, of course. But a natively talented guy with 10 hours of grinding will somehow be better than the untalented guy with 100 hours of grinding

darkpuma 7y ago
> " anyone who says otherwise is either lying " Often to themselves in my experience. People who've not yet discovered any of their own talents are sometimes bitter at the suggestion that talent is a real thing.
- dragandj 7y ago
  I think it is the opposite: there is a huge number of people in any nation, so talent is abundant. The thing is that at the top tier everyone is talented, and usually the dedication and factors other than talent, including luck, is what makes the difference.
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    FWIW, it’s pretty clear to anybody who watches pro sports that talent differs dramatically even at the highest level.
    - dragandj 7y ago
      I am not sure that most people that watch pro sports have knowledge to judge the fine details. What is pretty clear to anybody is that someone plays better, but what is not clear is why is that so. For every dominant pro athlete there might be many that were injured or had other problems that degraded their performance.
      - toasterlovin 7y ago
        It's pretty clear to even unskilled watchers that, for instance, Lebron James and Shaquille O'Neil are/were talented in a way that no players before or since were. Both players can move with the speed and agility of payers that weigh 50 lbs less. And if it's true that innate talent is the major differentiator at literally the pinnacle of the sport, why would one assume that it somehow ceases to be the case at the levels just below that? Especially when every single professional player has access to the same resources and hours in the day for the practice and training aspect of sports performance? And, FWIW, Shaq was notorious for his poor work ethic. He never practiced basic skills (free throw shooting) and always started a new season overweight and out of shape. Then there's the fastest person who ever lived, Usain Bolt, who trains less than a motivated amateur cross fitter.
      - puranjay 7y ago
        The truly greats in most sports just seem to have something "extra" that can't be earned by practice and skill alone. Their reflexes move just a little bit faster, their muscles recover just a tad bit quicker. I really don't think the difference between an Usain Bolt and a Tyson Gay is practice. Or that no one has been able to beat Federer/Nadal/Djokovic in a decade consistently because they're not practicing hard enough. At the highest level, it's a game of milliseconds and 0.1% improvements. The truly great just somehow have that
YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
>> Native talent is definitely a thing and anyone who says otherwise is either lying or trying to sell you something. Maybe it is a thing. But I doubt it's the most important thing. I'm an amateur musician too (I think that's what you mean by part-time?). Yep, I've seen people with a native ability, who can just grab an instrument and play. At the same time, I've seen the same people never improve no matter how much they tried, mostly though because they never tried, while others who were not as "talented" spent the hours and got better and better and better, and eventually better than the talented person and then much better than that. Some of the talented persons are too talented for their own good and never figure out what "discipline" means, so their talent remains for ever precocious. And I've also seen people get mightily impressed by others' talent and overlook their own abiilties, to the point that they severely underestimate them. I have a close example (not me!) of someone who is just good with theory, but gets awfully disappointed that she can't just sit at a piano and start playing without thinking about what she's doing, like a cousin and an aunt of hers do. On the other hand, when I play with her, she's always the one who figures out where a song should start from, how we should transport a melody to our respective instruments, and so on. She knows music. But she can't just "grab an instrument and play" so she thinks she doesn't have a talent. Well I can grab an instrument and just play, apparently, but I have no fucking idea what I'm playing (she usually is the one who figures it out for me). I digress. My point is this. You observe a person who has a natural talent and a person who doesn't, at the start of their careers. At that point, you can not predict which of the two is going to be a master of their craft, sport, art, etc (or if both are, or neither). There are so many other factors involved that talent, on its own, means nothing.
- puranjay 7y ago
  I'd call myself an amateur in terms of skill. But I've been paid a couple of times for producing tracks so I take the leap and call myself a "part-time" musician now :) Music is weird in the way that there are people with little to no training who can still write incredible melodies. And there are musicians who can write books on music theory but not be able to write a memorable melody. But you are 100% right in that an untalented musician who works at her craft can become good, while a talented one who never practices with the intention of improving will remain stuck. Combine talent with focused practice, however, and you get magic :)

darkpuma 7y ago

> " anyone who says otherwise is either lying " Often to themselves in my experience. People who've not yet discovered any of their own talents are sometimes bitter at the suggestion that talent is a real thing.

dragandj 7y ago
I think it is the opposite: there is a huge number of people in any nation, so talent is abundant. The thing is that at the top tier everyone is talented, and usually the dedication and factors other than talent, including luck, is what makes the difference.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  FWIW, it’s pretty clear to anybody who watches pro sports that talent differs dramatically even at the highest level.
  - dragandj 7y ago
    I am not sure that most people that watch pro sports have knowledge to judge the fine details. What is pretty clear to anybody is that someone plays better, but what is not clear is why is that so. For every dominant pro athlete there might be many that were injured or had other problems that degraded their performance.
    - toasterlovin 7y ago
      It's pretty clear to even unskilled watchers that, for instance, Lebron James and Shaquille O'Neil are/were talented in a way that no players before or since were. Both players can move with the speed and agility of payers that weigh 50 lbs less. And if it's true that innate talent is the major differentiator at literally the pinnacle of the sport, why would one assume that it somehow ceases to be the case at the levels just below that? Especially when every single professional player has access to the same resources and hours in the day for the practice and training aspect of sports performance? And, FWIW, Shaq was notorious for his poor work ethic. He never practiced basic skills (free throw shooting) and always started a new season overweight and out of shape. Then there's the fastest person who ever lived, Usain Bolt, who trains less than a motivated amateur cross fitter.
    - puranjay 7y ago
      The truly greats in most sports just seem to have something "extra" that can't be earned by practice and skill alone. Their reflexes move just a little bit faster, their muscles recover just a tad bit quicker. I really don't think the difference between an Usain Bolt and a Tyson Gay is practice. Or that no one has been able to beat Federer/Nadal/Djokovic in a decade consistently because they're not practicing hard enough. At the highest level, it's a game of milliseconds and 0.1% improvements. The truly great just somehow have that

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago

>> Native talent is definitely a thing and anyone who says otherwise is either lying or trying to sell you something. Maybe it is a thing. But I doubt it's the most important thing. I'm an amateur musician too (I think that's what you mean by part-time?). Yep, I've seen people with a native ability, who can just grab an instrument and play. At the same time, I've seen the same people never improve no matter how much they tried, mostly though because they never tried, while others who were not as "talented" spent the hours and got better and better and better, and eventually better than the talented person and then much better than that. Some of the talented persons are too talented for their own good and never figure out what "discipline" means, so their talent remains for ever precocious. And I've also seen people get mightily impressed by others' talent and overlook their own abiilties, to the point that they severely underestimate them. I have a close example (not me!) of someone who is just good with theory, but gets awfully disappointed that she can't just sit at a piano and start playing without thinking about what she's doing, like a cousin and an aunt of hers do. On the other hand, when I play with her, she's always the one who figures out where a song should start from, how we should transport a melody to our respective instruments, and so on. She knows music. But she can't just "grab an instrument and play" so she thinks she doesn't have a talent. Well I can grab an instrument and just play, apparently, but I have no fucking idea what I'm playing (she usually is the one who figures it out for me). I digress. My point is this. You observe a person who has a natural talent and a person who doesn't, at the start of their careers. At that point, you can not predict which of the two is going to be a master of their craft, sport, art, etc (or if both are, or neither). There are so many other factors involved that talent, on its own, means nothing.

puranjay 7y ago
I'd call myself an amateur in terms of skill. But I've been paid a couple of times for producing tracks so I take the leap and call myself a "part-time" musician now :) Music is weird in the way that there are people with little to no training who can still write incredible melodies. And there are musicians who can write books on music theory but not be able to write a memorable melody. But you are 100% right in that an untalented musician who works at her craft can become good, while a talented one who never practices with the intention of improving will remain stuck. Combine talent with focused practice, however, and you get magic :)