3 ms·

My understanding is that there is no innate talent for programming, math, art, or anything else. It's just a question of how hard you're willing to work at lear

by sskates 16y ago

My understanding is that there is no innate talent for programming, math, art, or anything else. It's just a question of how hard you're willing to work at learning how to become the best. (This is the thesis of Talent is Overrated, which I highly recommend. Alternatively you can Google "deliberate practice".) The kicker is that even if this isn't true, people who live their life as if it is will be better off.

Swizec 16y ago
One could argue that the extreme level of interest in a field you must exhibit to practice gruelingly hard is a form of talent in itself, or that it stems from some kernel of innate talent. There's bound to be a reason why some super intelligent people are deeply interesting in programming or maths and excel at it, while other people of the same level of intelligence simply don't and instead do something completely different with their lives.
- sskates 16y ago
  Oh I definitely agree here. Great programmers only got good because they love to geek out about it. That's not something that can be trained. Given that the OP shouldn't feel bad for not wanting to program, he should spend his time following his passion!
xiaoma 16y ago
>My understanding is that there is no innate talent for programming, math, art, or anything else. Your understanding is completely wrong. Many, many genes have been linked with specific talents. Music: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1209186.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1209186.stm Athletics: https://www.23andme.com/health/Muscle-Performance/ https://www.23andme.com/health/Muscle-Performance/ Art: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article880132.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article880132.ec... Also this from a geneticist: http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=91 http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=91 I realize claims that there is no such thing as talent are very popular and will sell a lot of books. That doesn't make them true. I'm afraid the way things are and the way people wish they were are not the same.
- sskates 16y ago
  Let's take this point by point. Athletics: There are genetic components for physical abilities, this is well established in the literature. Art: Of course our cognitive abilities that set us apart from other species is genetic. The article you link to makes no claim as to whether the best artists are better than the rest of us because of their genes. Music: There's a gene which makes 1 in 20 tone deaf and it looks like perfect pitch has a basis in genetics (either way, it's something you can't train). Far, far more important to being a successful musician are three components (which the article cites): support from parents and mentors, instruction by experts, and dedicated practice. Variation between ability in people comes overwhelmingly from those three things and genetics plays a tiny role, if any at all. I think the overarching point is that if the OP prefers politics to programming, then he shouldn't feel sorry for wasting his programming "talent", as there's no such thing. He can be just as good at politics if he's willing to put in the time to learn.
  - hackinthebochs 16y ago
    Just to take the musician example: >far more important to being a successful musician are three components I agree that these are necessary traits to be a successful musician, but they are not sufficient. There are (apparently) many "tiger moms" out there pushing their children with the same amount of relentlessness to excel with a musical instrument. Yet only a handful of them play at Carnagie Hall at 10. I find it hard to believe that those that achieve that level of proficiency were simply "pushed harder" by their parents. This is a poor explanation for the outcome. A better explanation is that the intersection of tiger mom's and genetic aptitude for music is extremely rare. >then he shouldn't feel sorry for wasting his programming "talent", as there's no such thing Again, I don't think the evidence bares this out. Taking myself as an example: I've always taken to math extremely easily. I always "got" it with little effort. This even through periods where I cared none about schoolwork and thus didn't do any of it (my report cards reflected this). It was the same with programming. I took my first class in high school and it came extremely easy to me and I've excelled at it ever since. I find it very hard to believe that talent isn't a huge factor in these things.
  - xiaoma 16y ago

by sskates 16y ago

Swizec 16y ago

One could argue that the extreme level of interest in a field you must exhibit to practice gruelingly hard is a form of talent in itself, or that it stems from some kernel of innate talent. There's bound to be a reason why some super intelligent people are deeply interesting in programming or maths and excel at it, while other people of the same level of intelligence simply don't and instead do something completely different with their lives.

sskates 16y ago
Oh I definitely agree here. Great programmers only got good because they love to geek out about it. That's not something that can be trained. Given that the OP shouldn't feel bad for not wanting to program, he should spend his time following his passion!

xiaoma 16y ago

>My understanding is that there is no innate talent for programming, math, art, or anything else. Your understanding is completely wrong. Many, many genes have been linked with specific talents. Music: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1209186.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1209186.stm Athletics: https://www.23andme.com/health/Muscle-Performance/ https://www.23andme.com/health/Muscle-Performance/ Art: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article880132.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article880132.ec... Also this from a geneticist: http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=91 http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=91 I realize claims that there is no such thing as talent are very popular and will sell a lot of books. That doesn't make them true. I'm afraid the way things are and the way people wish they were are not the same.

sskates 16y ago
Let's take this point by point. Athletics: There are genetic components for physical abilities, this is well established in the literature. Art: Of course our cognitive abilities that set us apart from other species is genetic. The article you link to makes no claim as to whether the best artists are better than the rest of us because of their genes. Music: There's a gene which makes 1 in 20 tone deaf and it looks like perfect pitch has a basis in genetics (either way, it's something you can't train). Far, far more important to being a successful musician are three components (which the article cites): support from parents and mentors, instruction by experts, and dedicated practice. Variation between ability in people comes overwhelmingly from those three things and genetics plays a tiny role, if any at all. I think the overarching point is that if the OP prefers politics to programming, then he shouldn't feel sorry for wasting his programming "talent", as there's no such thing. He can be just as good at politics if he's willing to put in the time to learn.
- hackinthebochs 16y ago
  Just to take the musician example: >far more important to being a successful musician are three components I agree that these are necessary traits to be a successful musician, but they are not sufficient. There are (apparently) many "tiger moms" out there pushing their children with the same amount of relentlessness to excel with a musical instrument. Yet only a handful of them play at Carnagie Hall at 10. I find it hard to believe that those that achieve that level of proficiency were simply "pushed harder" by their parents. This is a poor explanation for the outcome. A better explanation is that the intersection of tiger mom's and genetic aptitude for music is extremely rare. >then he shouldn't feel sorry for wasting his programming "talent", as there's no such thing Again, I don't think the evidence bares this out. Taking myself as an example: I've always taken to math extremely easily. I always "got" it with little effort. This even through periods where I cared none about schoolwork and thus didn't do any of it (my report cards reflected this). It was the same with programming. I took my first class in high school and it came extremely easy to me and I've excelled at it ever since. I find it very hard to believe that talent isn't a huge factor in these things.
- xiaoma 16y ago