2 ms·

I liked this essay regarding the nature of talent. http://rittersp.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Chambliss-Mundanity-of-Excellence.pdf http://rittersp.com/wp-c

I liked this essay regarding the nature of talent. http://rittersp.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Chambliss-Mundanity-of-Excellence.pdf http://rittersp.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Chambliss-Mun... Like much social science, one should be careful to not assume that any results would generalise to more cases, but I still think some of the ideas are interesting: - When people talk about talent, it is some relatively immutable quality people have inside themselves that creates excellence. When people talk about observing (eg spotting or wasting) talent, they are really talking about observing excellence or high competency. Talent of the first kind is mostly not a thing (but eg some people may be predisposed to certain kinds of athleticism). - Being excellent at one thing needn’t come with excellence or deviance at anything else. I think many people on HN will quite easily understand that typical celebrity recommendations (even if unsponsored) have no particular reason to be credible, but another aspect of this is the idea of the weird or eccentric genius which we sometimes see applied to programming (and I think less applied to eg being a lawyer or doctor).

borroka 5y ago
"Talent of the first kind is mostly not a thing (but eg some people may be predisposed to certain kinds of athleticism)." - Statements like this work reasonably well on HN and stupendously on the very receptive New York Times audience, but fail miserably when the first real-life punch lands (figuratively) on the speaker's jaw. "Talent" or "genetic quality" or "genetic predisposition" when considering a skill or activity is a fact of life and has been demonstrated in countless studies of twins. I studied fish and birds for a long time and even there the main confounder when studying the effects of environment on life histories or physiological functions was "individual quality", the fact that just about everywhere certain individuals do much better than others for reasons other than "lucky breaks". I've also seen people run very fast (much faster than me), draw very well (I draw houses and people the same way), tune their guitar by saying la-la (whereas I can't tell the difference between a piano and a church bell).
- dan-robertson 5y ago
  Yeah I meant to mention that that opinion is likely something that was east for the author to read. I think it is also personally useful to believe it and therefore that one is somewhat responsible for one’s successes and failures.

borroka 5y ago

"Talent of the first kind is mostly not a thing (but eg some people may be predisposed to certain kinds of athleticism)." - Statements like this work reasonably well on HN and stupendously on the very receptive New York Times audience, but fail miserably when the first real-life punch lands (figuratively) on the speaker's jaw. "Talent" or "genetic quality" or "genetic predisposition" when considering a skill or activity is a fact of life and has been demonstrated in countless studies of twins. I studied fish and birds for a long time and even there the main confounder when studying the effects of environment on life histories or physiological functions was "individual quality", the fact that just about everywhere certain individuals do much better than others for reasons other than "lucky breaks". I've also seen people run very fast (much faster than me), draw very well (I draw houses and people the same way), tune their guitar by saying la-la (whereas I can't tell the difference between a piano and a church bell).

dan-robertson 5y ago
Yeah I meant to mention that that opinion is likely something that was east for the author to read. I think it is also personally useful to believe it and therefore that one is somewhat responsible for one’s successes and failures.