3 ms·

I have artist friends who get really annoyed when they hear people say "I wanted to draw but I just don't have any talent for it, not like you". They feel like

by kemayo 16y ago

I have artist friends who get really annoyed when they hear people say "I wanted to draw but I just don't have any talent for it, not like you". They feel like it's totally dismissing the years of obsessive practice they've put into it to make it /seem/ effortless. Natural talent counts for something, but it's not going to make you a success. I saw "result = talent * effort" mentioned on the last HN post about this, and I thought it was pretty accurate.

alexophile 16y ago
As usual, Derek Sivers has a wonderfully relevant essay on this: http://sivers.org/15-years http://sivers.org/15-years
neutronicus 16y ago
I had an ex with natural talent for art. She never went anywhere with it (took the safe route and became a nurse instead), but she was just plain better at art than other people, with considerably less effort.
- kemayo 16y ago
  Some people certainly do have a natural talent for something. However, this rarely means that they're good enough to succeed at that thing without working on it. I.e. if your ex wanted to make a living as an artist she'd still likely have had to go to school / practice extensively before being good enough that people would have bought her stuff. Also, and I don't know whether this is the case with your ex, it's entirely possible that she was better at art because she'd been idly drawing over the years. I've certainly known people who wouldn't call themselves artists whose default idle activity is to sketch away on a piece of paper. They're vastly better than me, because they've been practicing in a low-key way for years. Natural talent just gives you a head start on others. Someone willing to put in more effort than you can still be better than you. I suppose this may break down around the limits of a field, especially one rooted in physical activity. E.g. Michael Phelps seems to be nearly perfectly physically adapted for swimming. If he never practiced then he'd be easily outswum by anyone half-decent... but by putting in massive effort training he reaches a point where he's practically unbeatable.

by kemayo 16y ago

alexophile 16y ago

As usual, Derek Sivers has a wonderfully relevant essay on this: http://sivers.org/15-years http://sivers.org/15-years

neutronicus 16y ago

I had an ex with natural talent for art. She never went anywhere with it (took the safe route and became a nurse instead), but she was just plain better at art than other people, with considerably less effort.

kemayo 16y ago
Some people certainly do have a natural talent for something. However, this rarely means that they're good enough to succeed at that thing without working on it. I.e. if your ex wanted to make a living as an artist she'd still likely have had to go to school / practice extensively before being good enough that people would have bought her stuff. Also, and I don't know whether this is the case with your ex, it's entirely possible that she was better at art because she'd been idly drawing over the years. I've certainly known people who wouldn't call themselves artists whose default idle activity is to sketch away on a piece of paper. They're vastly better than me, because they've been practicing in a low-key way for years. Natural talent just gives you a head start on others. Someone willing to put in more effort than you can still be better than you. I suppose this may break down around the limits of a field, especially one rooted in physical activity. E.g. Michael Phelps seems to be nearly perfectly physically adapted for swimming. If he never practiced then he'd be easily outswum by anyone half-decent... but by putting in massive effort training he reaches a point where he's practically unbeatable.