6 ms·

Talent Is Alignment

30 points by xlii 1y ago

ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
Sounds like skill, as opposed to talent. Alignment is a good term, but it seems fairly simple: do we want to do something? I had a wonderful English teacher, in 6th grade. He had us read The Hobbit, and other fantasy books, as opposed to the usual “classic” literature. It made all the difference, and I’ve been a voracious reader, all my life. Other factors also came into play, but I credit Mr. Martin, for helping me to become interested in reading. In seventh grade, I had Mrs. Broadbent, and she forced us to read “classic literature.” It was awful, after my sixth grade experience. Wanting to do stuff has always been important to me. And encouraging people to want to do stuff is a vital aspect of training and managing.
- willvarfar 1y ago
  To be fair there might be other students in your same class who, like perhaps Mrs Broadbent herself, would find classic literature to be the thing that ignites their love of reading? Personally I tried and failed to get into LotR as a kid even though I was a keen reader. Same with Shakespeare. Not everything is for everyone. So I guess the big deal is everyone getting to meet a book that they can get into as a kid, to foster a love of reading. And different people have different books. Therefore the problem with high school literature is everyone reading the same narrow assigned set of books, rather than what that narrow set is?
  - ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
    This is true. I feel as if a "One size fits all" approach is a problem. That's something that "AI" might actually be good for; helping to craft solutions to individuals, while preserving a consistent utility.
  - AlecSchueler 1y ago
    I was that kid; never enjoyed fantasy at all, but everything clicked when I discovered Dostoevsky in the school library.
    - ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
      I’ve read plenty of the classics, since, but that’s because my reading comprehension is so good from all that “junk.” If reading is painful, we won’t do it, no matter how good it is for us. Same with thinking, problem-solving, learning, whatever.
mapcars 1y ago
> The first rule to become a gym beast is to believe you are a gym beast. > That is: you need convince yourself that what you do is the best thing you ever do. I think this is a dumb idea, a mix of wishful thinking and immature psychology. You become someone because of your competence, not of what you believe in. We all want to do the best thing, but in practice in every project there are lots and lots of small, routine things that have to be done in order for the best things ever to even start functioning. I think its important to understand clearly what is the best, and what is necessary and see how each part contributes to the whole project.
- xlii 1y ago
  This is often discussed in Psychology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_it_till_you_make_it#In_psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_it_till_you_make_it#In_ps...) Regarding gym beast - it has few effects: - you eat bigger portions - you go to gym more often - you try harder (i.e. bigger weights etc.) I can atest that this works _for me_, but using confidence to reach a goal is quite common.
  - mapcars 1y ago
    > Regarding gym beast - it has few effects: - you eat bigger portions - you go to gym more often - you try harder I mean there is nothing stopping one from doing all that without thinking "I'm a gym beast now". I feel that its more about breaking the mental structure one is used to, eg "I'm not good at the gym", in that case it might help, but I would argue that instead of replacing one with another why not drop it completely and just do what is needed for the goal one has set. If you do the right things the results will always follow.
    - NalNezumi 1y ago
      You're not wrong. But only right in a "if you're homeless, buy a house" sense. "stop having low self-esteem bro" is not an constructive advice. We human are peculiar in that our perception of things (about ourselves) often affect the outcome. "it won't work anyway..." mindset when starting usually end up being a source of self sabotage. Probably somewhere along the line with protecting ego or creating surrogate objective such as "See it didn't work. *I* was right". Creating a vicious loop. Blind optimism have shown, to many, is a good antidote. Some enforced enlightenment or rationalist talking points usually don't
throwaway019254 1y ago
> In fact, while I’m unable to remember sounds or hear them in my head, it seems I have a rather good understanding what “sounds nice” that allows me to ad-hoc compose music. This is interesting. I can remember and hear sounds in my head, but can't visualize any images. I wonder how common it is.
- jraph 1y ago
  I didn't know about the not remembering or forming sounds in one's own head thing. For the image part: > A 2022 study estimated the prevalence of aphantasia among the general population by screening undergraduate students and people from an online crowdsourcing marketplace through the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire. They found that 0.8% of the population was unable to form visual mental images, and 3.9% of the population was either unable to form mental images or had dim or vague mental imagery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia
  - xlii 1y ago
    I discussed this with doctors and I was told that visual and audible aphantasia exist, but visual one is much more known. It seems I have both, which explains why I never could learn in classical way through repetition, hearing etc. However I need to also say that after this year I sometimes can humm in my mind simple tunes like "Old McDonald", "Twinkle Twinkle" or that Looney Tunes piano melody that was always portrayed during rigging the piano, so it might not be hopeless.
    - adastra22 1y ago
      You could be describing me. Some very ingrained jingles I can (often involuntarily) reproduce in my mind, but that’s it. I suspect that this is the result of some other learned skill that is repurposing other neural wiring to store these audible memories, since I seem utterly incapable of forming or recalling melodies otherwise.
      - xlii 1y ago
kashunstva 1y ago
There is a science on talent development, famously popularized in part by Malcolm Gladwell in his over-simplification of the "10,000 hour rule," which he presented as "do something for 10K hours and you'll have mastered it." In fact K. Anders Ericsson maintained that the difference between the highest achieving musicians and the next tiers of achievement were associated with higher volume of _deliberate practice_. The differences were significant around 10,000 hrs. A later meta-analysis looked at the literature and found that practice accounted for far less of the measurable factors that explained the difference in outcomes - maybe just 12% or so. I think the take-away from these discrepant studies of talent development is that it's a complex phenomenon likely involving genetic predisposition, other factors that influence neural "wiring", availability of opportunities to learn and develop (socioeconomic factors), and practice quality and volume. If alignment is involved, it's alignment of these factors. The caveat behind all of this is that the research is heavily focused on the factors that propel one into the high reaches of achievement. For example, Ericsson studied students in acclaimed conservatories. How these factors play out in how talent develops in "good-enough" practitioners is perhaps a different question.
- adastra22 1y ago
  I’ve been lucky enough to meet a number of high performers across some disparate domains. In nearly all cases genetic / nature explanations count for zilch. Alignment, in the sense that TFA talks about, is everything. I think that across the board a lot of people mistake passion for talent. Which’s what OP is discussing. The people who do well are those whose passion drives them to do better, every waking moment of every day, because that is where they find their enjoyment. This isn’t a substitute for talent. It is talent.
  - petesergeant 1y ago
    > In nearly all cases genetic / nature explanations count for zilch How would you even begin to know this?
    - adastra22 1y ago
megamix 1y ago
I believe this less as of now. Sure you can put in the hours, but you can see the difference between ppl that are fast learners and not. ™Do what you are" is a much better ordination. Some people are better wired for sports, maths or arts etc. Far too many are shoehorned into careers not suitable for them intrinsically - but that's also how the economy works. Hey, maybe you're talking about hobbies though? I think also that what you're getting inner motivation from is also the most hidden from you, therefore it becomes necessary to explore and try to align with as many things as you can. If you're lucky then you do it at an early age.
- tgv 1y ago
  It's so obvious. Someone born without legs will not be able to run, no matter how much he or she imagines being a runner. When we can't see the thing that obviously explains such a discrepancy, we call it "talent." In many cases, a large part of that is cognitive, and it's not fashionable to think of cognitive abilities as innate, or worse, genetic. Hence the wishful thinking that you're born tabula rasa and can good at anything for which there's no obvious physical hindrance. It's also not clear that what the "baseline" is for many accomplishments. Perhaps 80% of the population has some musical talent, perhaps 20%. I don't rate the improvisation on his blog highly. Noodling without development, a weak left hand, and questionable rhythm.
  - card_zero 1y ago
    It's so obvious, this invisible thing? Seems to me the wishful thinking could go either way here, and you could build a whole imaginary castle of hidden innate abilities, since they're hidden.
    - tgv 1y ago
      > could go either way Why do innate differences stop at the brain-blood barrier? Isn't it quite reasonable to assume that physical, biological differences exist everywhere in the body, since birth? A priori there's no reason for assuming otherwise. There's enough evidence that intelligence is partially heritedary. It's also obvious that there are differences between people who dedicate themselves to their hobbies and profession, well beyond the 10k hours. If it could the other way, why isn't there an endless stream of Einsteins and Newtons? Are all physicists lazy? That "castle of hidden abilities" exists, BTW, even though it's usually focussed on short-comings. Our genes are quite hidden, and determine a great deal of our capabilities and lack thereof.
noelwelsh 1y ago
Nah, there is definitely a genetic basis that allows you to pick things up faster or slower than average. I have one kid who is very uncoordinated, and one who picks up movement effortlessly. The kid who is good at sport (but doesn't actually play any sports) knocked out 16 pullups a few days ago, with no prior training. My all time PR is 17 pullups, and I had to train for years to get that. Some people just are built different. (I've always found symbolic reasoning very easy, so I have my fair share of gifts.) In other words, it's not nature vs nurture, it's nature and nurture. If you want to excel at a field you have to start with some genetic advantages but then you need to put in the work. (Yes, there is a undertone of frustrated parent in this post.)
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
marktani 1y ago
For me it feels like talent = \int_{time} love. Reminds me of the meme where a kid is dropping tears on the math assignment sheet, "when you do homework with your dad". Forcing kids to spend time on something is an effective way to spoil it for them. Exploring [math] from a place of curiosity, openness, joy - so, love - is to act out of alignment. This also means that you need to start from within to develop your talent. What are you curious about, what excites you? Doesn't matter if that's math, obscure bird species or screws. There's a compounding effect here, once you're deep enough in a couple domains you're starting to see their commonalities and less explored nuances at the domain boundaries.
- lblume 1y ago
  > Forcing kids to spend time on something is an effective way to spoil it for them. I generally agree. However most school systems force students to learn basic math, which is generally used for testing whether the student is able to think structurally and follow simple rules. Although I agree intrinsic motivation to be extremely valuable, not doing math with children the way school intends may just lead to worse grades and outcomes.
k__ 1y ago
Music is art. It's about doing something interesting, that doesn't mean is has to be complex or complicated. OP does the right thing in sticking to simple stuff, because that's what they can control right now.
- xlii 1y ago
  That's what my music teacher told me. I agree but then I have that irresistible pull for "do more, complicate, extend". And with change of seasons my fingers became stiff which is annoying.
bko 1y ago
> In a very short summary - talent is time spent on learning or doing something. Which means that anyone can be talented in any area. That’s it. That’s the secret. Go, and be the next Mozart, Copernicus or Tesla (don’t be Edison, that guy was a dick). I used to believe this. Like many I was swayed by 10k hours. You hear stories like "Mozart wrote his first symphony at 8" but also hear "he must have easily been approaching thousands of hours by that point!" The one thing that convinced me otherwise is bodybuilding. Take Jay Cutler, one of the greats. He started lifting at 18 and reported that in his first year of training, he gained approximately 50 pounds of muscle, going from around 180 pounds to about 230 pounds by age 19. He quickly got his squat up to 700lb, an insane feat. This is what he looked like [1] People don't normally put on anywhere close 50 pounds of muscle in a lifetime, no matter how hard they try. Ronnie Coleman had similar stories, and started bodybuilding at 24, staying natural the first 6 years. He had to gear up to eventually reach the main stage, but he was a beast regardless. It helps when your mom looks like this [2] Talent is so obvious when you look at physical tasks. Anyone who spent significant time at the gym knows there are people that roll in every 6 months that are always strong. Or that runner that can roll out of bed untrained and run sub-6 minute miles. Sure anyone can look good and improve their performance, but some people are just talented. And to reach the pinnacle of performance, you have to be extremely hard working and extremely talented. Now apply that to every other field. [0] https://generationiron.com/18-year-old-jay-cutler-4-months-into-training/ https://generationiron.com/18-year-old-jay-cutler-4-months-i... [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/bodybuilding/comments/8p9mok/jay_cutler_at_age_18_the_year_he_started_training/ https://www.reddit.com/r/bodybuilding/comments/8p9mok/jay_cu... [2] https://www.facebook.com/GymFailNation/posts/ronnie-coleman-and-his-mother-%EF%B8%8F/1054271803397413/ https://www.facebook.com/GymFailNation/posts/ronnie-coleman-...
- Etheryte 1y ago
  This isn't talent, it's just steroids. It's almost funny how someone can look at that picture and not think of that.
  - n4r9 1y ago
    I mean, it's going to be steroids plus genetics plus a massive amount of effort. Few people can look like that after one year of lifting, no matter how hard they try.
koolba 1y ago
The math does not check out here: > When I share recordings with family and friends I often hear that I’m talented and people are surprised that I only play for a year. I have much worse opinion about myself, but take the compliments with gratitude. > Here I’ll share the secret with all of you. The open secret that I tell to everyone who asks: I play piano 1-3 hours per day. As of today that’s probably ~1000-1500 hours. 1000 hours in one year is 2.73 hours per day. 1500 hours in one year is 4.1 hours per day. And that's 365 days in a year. If you drop it to 250 (say M-F), it's 4 hours per day (1000) to 6 hours per day (1500). If that's dedicated time, that's more in line for a full time job (or at least the portion you're actually doing constructive work).
- xlii 1y ago
  That's correct, it's just reality is too complicated to put in simple numbers. I play 1-3 hours daily per usual, but had 5-10h sessions sometimes. Once my family left and I sat 18h hours while practicing sounds. And yes, I play everyday, as mentioned I have other devices so on vacations/trips I always have something with me. Usually small synthesizer. It's not a full piano, but allows me to explore chords, check various finger positions etc.
z3t4 1y ago
Talent is how good you are at something. So you can have "talent" by training a lot. You can however argue that two people that are equal in skill, but one trained less then the other, do that person have more talent? Too much talent at early stage can however hinder growth to full potential because that person is not used to work hard for the gains. So early talent is not everything, but it does make things easier.
TrackerFF 1y ago
I see talent as both the potential of someone, and the capacity to realize said potential. I've written this before, but I'm also a musician - and have been for 25 years, and music was what I did prior to becoming an engineer. I've interacted with hundreds of musicians in my lifetime, and have observed thousands. Discovering "typically" talented individuals is pretty easy: - They learn fast - They excel fast - They are unusually skilled at something from the get-go. In music, this usually means that even as very beginners, they have a good pitch. Or sense of rhythm. Within maybe 3-5 years, they are at the same level that takes regular musicians 10-15 years to reach. That does however not mean that the individuals that lack the above, are not talented. I've seen people that have progressed slowly, but steadily, and become fantastic musicians. Some people will reach 90% in 5 years, others will reach 90% in 10-15-20 years. Motivation and work ethic tends to be independent skills. There are extremely talented people out there that lack motivation and work ethics, and will abandon the interest, when the going gets tough, or they simple lose interest. The people that aren't talented, are those that will never progress, no mater how much time and energy they put into it. I know people that have truly tried their best, those that have been going at it for years and years (decades even), but just can't progress beyond beginner stage. They have no sense of rhythm, they are tone deaf, and just can't muscle coordinate enough to become proficient at instruments, and can't pick up theory. (Note: this does not mean that you can enjoy making music, or have fun with music! It mostly just limits what you can play. Some genres or songs will likely just forever be out of reach)
jaynetics 1y ago
The piano piece is nice. You might enjoy Lubomyr Melnyk. I think its a good approach to discover and build upon what feels good. There are plenty of pianists that can play a catalogue of songs, or improvise "flawlessly", but rareness or uniqueness are great qualities for art to have. I'm not sure how well the same applies to work, though, where fulfilling implicit or explicit standards plays more of a role. A developed "taste" plays a role in doing e.g. a good sysadmin job, but if you're creating something unique here, any successor is likely to have a bad time, no matter how beautiful this creation seemed at the time. I do agree with the idea that passion can be a big driver in both worlds, it just seems to me that in work there's more to gain if it is harnessed to some degree.
ahlCVA 1y ago
Relevant SSC blog post: https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/31/the-parable-of-the-talents/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/31/the-parable-of-the-tal... Starting from very similar observations but drawing the causality arrow in the opposite direction (alignment follows from talent).

30 points by xlii 1y ago

Sounds like skill, as opposed to talent. Alignment is a good term, but it seems fairly simple: do we want to do something? I had a wonderful English teacher, in 6th grade. He had us read The Hobbit, and other fantasy books, as opposed to the usual “classic” literature. It made all the difference, and I’ve been a voracious reader, all my life. Other factors also came into play, but I credit Mr. Martin, for helping me to become interested in reading. In seventh grade, I had Mrs. Broadbent, and she forced us to read “classic literature.” It was awful, after my sixth grade experience. Wanting to do stuff has always been important to me. And encouraging people to want to do stuff is a vital aspect of training and managing.

willvarfar 1y ago
To be fair there might be other students in your same class who, like perhaps Mrs Broadbent herself, would find classic literature to be the thing that ignites their love of reading? Personally I tried and failed to get into LotR as a kid even though I was a keen reader. Same with Shakespeare. Not everything is for everyone. So I guess the big deal is everyone getting to meet a book that they can get into as a kid, to foster a love of reading. And different people have different books. Therefore the problem with high school literature is everyone reading the same narrow assigned set of books, rather than what that narrow set is?
- ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
  This is true. I feel as if a "One size fits all" approach is a problem. That's something that "AI" might actually be good for; helping to craft solutions to individuals, while preserving a consistent utility.
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  I was that kid; never enjoyed fantasy at all, but everything clicked when I discovered Dostoevsky in the school library.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
    I’ve read plenty of the classics, since, but that’s because my reading comprehension is so good from all that “junk.” If reading is painful, we won’t do it, no matter how good it is for us. Same with thinking, problem-solving, learning, whatever.

mapcars 1y ago

> The first rule to become a gym beast is to believe you are a gym beast. > That is: you need convince yourself that what you do is the best thing you ever do. I think this is a dumb idea, a mix of wishful thinking and immature psychology. You become someone because of your competence, not of what you believe in. We all want to do the best thing, but in practice in every project there are lots and lots of small, routine things that have to be done in order for the best things ever to even start functioning. I think its important to understand clearly what is the best, and what is necessary and see how each part contributes to the whole project.

xlii 1y ago
This is often discussed in Psychology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_it_till_you_make_it#In_psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_it_till_you_make_it#In_ps...) Regarding gym beast - it has few effects: - you eat bigger portions - you go to gym more often - you try harder (i.e. bigger weights etc.) I can atest that this works _for me_, but using confidence to reach a goal is quite common.
- mapcars 1y ago
  > Regarding gym beast - it has few effects: - you eat bigger portions - you go to gym more often - you try harder I mean there is nothing stopping one from doing all that without thinking "I'm a gym beast now". I feel that its more about breaking the mental structure one is used to, eg "I'm not good at the gym", in that case it might help, but I would argue that instead of replacing one with another why not drop it completely and just do what is needed for the goal one has set. If you do the right things the results will always follow.
  - NalNezumi 1y ago
    You're not wrong. But only right in a "if you're homeless, buy a house" sense. "stop having low self-esteem bro" is not an constructive advice. We human are peculiar in that our perception of things (about ourselves) often affect the outcome. "it won't work anyway..." mindset when starting usually end up being a source of self sabotage. Probably somewhere along the line with protecting ego or creating surrogate objective such as "See it didn't work. *I* was right". Creating a vicious loop. Blind optimism have shown, to many, is a good antidote. Some enforced enlightenment or rationalist talking points usually don't

throwaway019254 1y ago

> In fact, while I’m unable to remember sounds or hear them in my head, it seems I have a rather good understanding what “sounds nice” that allows me to ad-hoc compose music. This is interesting. I can remember and hear sounds in my head, but can't visualize any images. I wonder how common it is.

jraph 1y ago
I didn't know about the not remembering or forming sounds in one's own head thing. For the image part: > A 2022 study estimated the prevalence of aphantasia among the general population by screening undergraduate students and people from an online crowdsourcing marketplace through the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire. They found that 0.8% of the population was unable to form visual mental images, and 3.9% of the population was either unable to form mental images or had dim or vague mental imagery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia
- xlii 1y ago
  I discussed this with doctors and I was told that visual and audible aphantasia exist, but visual one is much more known. It seems I have both, which explains why I never could learn in classical way through repetition, hearing etc. However I need to also say that after this year I sometimes can humm in my mind simple tunes like "Old McDonald", "Twinkle Twinkle" or that Looney Tunes piano melody that was always portrayed during rigging the piano, so it might not be hopeless.
  - adastra22 1y ago
    You could be describing me. Some very ingrained jingles I can (often involuntarily) reproduce in my mind, but that’s it. I suspect that this is the result of some other learned skill that is repurposing other neural wiring to store these audible memories, since I seem utterly incapable of forming or recalling melodies otherwise.
    - xlii 1y ago

kashunstva 1y ago

There is a science on talent development, famously popularized in part by Malcolm Gladwell in his over-simplification of the "10,000 hour rule," which he presented as "do something for 10K hours and you'll have mastered it." In fact K. Anders Ericsson maintained that the difference between the highest achieving musicians and the next tiers of achievement were associated with higher volume of _deliberate practice_. The differences were significant around 10,000 hrs. A later meta-analysis looked at the literature and found that practice accounted for far less of the measurable factors that explained the difference in outcomes - maybe just 12% or so. I think the take-away from these discrepant studies of talent development is that it's a complex phenomenon likely involving genetic predisposition, other factors that influence neural "wiring", availability of opportunities to learn and develop (socioeconomic factors), and practice quality and volume. If alignment is involved, it's alignment of these factors. The caveat behind all of this is that the research is heavily focused on the factors that propel one into the high reaches of achievement. For example, Ericsson studied students in acclaimed conservatories. How these factors play out in how talent develops in "good-enough" practitioners is perhaps a different question.

adastra22 1y ago
I’ve been lucky enough to meet a number of high performers across some disparate domains. In nearly all cases genetic / nature explanations count for zilch. Alignment, in the sense that TFA talks about, is everything. I think that across the board a lot of people mistake passion for talent. Which’s what OP is discussing. The people who do well are those whose passion drives them to do better, every waking moment of every day, because that is where they find their enjoyment. This isn’t a substitute for talent. It is talent.
- petesergeant 1y ago
  > In nearly all cases genetic / nature explanations count for zilch How would you even begin to know this?
  - adastra22 1y ago

megamix 1y ago

I believe this less as of now. Sure you can put in the hours, but you can see the difference between ppl that are fast learners and not. ™Do what you are" is a much better ordination. Some people are better wired for sports, maths or arts etc. Far too many are shoehorned into careers not suitable for them intrinsically - but that's also how the economy works. Hey, maybe you're talking about hobbies though? I think also that what you're getting inner motivation from is also the most hidden from you, therefore it becomes necessary to explore and try to align with as many things as you can. If you're lucky then you do it at an early age.

tgv 1y ago
It's so obvious. Someone born without legs will not be able to run, no matter how much he or she imagines being a runner. When we can't see the thing that obviously explains such a discrepancy, we call it "talent." In many cases, a large part of that is cognitive, and it's not fashionable to think of cognitive abilities as innate, or worse, genetic. Hence the wishful thinking that you're born tabula rasa and can good at anything for which there's no obvious physical hindrance. It's also not clear that what the "baseline" is for many accomplishments. Perhaps 80% of the population has some musical talent, perhaps 20%. I don't rate the improvisation on his blog highly. Noodling without development, a weak left hand, and questionable rhythm.
- card_zero 1y ago
  It's so obvious, this invisible thing? Seems to me the wishful thinking could go either way here, and you could build a whole imaginary castle of hidden innate abilities, since they're hidden.
  - tgv 1y ago
    > could go either way Why do innate differences stop at the brain-blood barrier? Isn't it quite reasonable to assume that physical, biological differences exist everywhere in the body, since birth? A priori there's no reason for assuming otherwise. There's enough evidence that intelligence is partially heritedary. It's also obvious that there are differences between people who dedicate themselves to their hobbies and profession, well beyond the 10k hours. If it could the other way, why isn't there an endless stream of Einsteins and Newtons? Are all physicists lazy? That "castle of hidden abilities" exists, BTW, even though it's usually focussed on short-comings. Our genes are quite hidden, and determine a great deal of our capabilities and lack thereof.

noelwelsh 1y ago

Nah, there is definitely a genetic basis that allows you to pick things up faster or slower than average. I have one kid who is very uncoordinated, and one who picks up movement effortlessly. The kid who is good at sport (but doesn't actually play any sports) knocked out 16 pullups a few days ago, with no prior training. My all time PR is 17 pullups, and I had to train for years to get that. Some people just are built different. (I've always found symbolic reasoning very easy, so I have my fair share of gifts.) In other words, it's not nature vs nurture, it's nature and nurture. If you want to excel at a field you have to start with some genetic advantages but then you need to put in the work. (Yes, there is a undertone of frustrated parent in this post.)

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

marktani 1y ago

For me it feels like talent = \int_{time} love. Reminds me of the meme where a kid is dropping tears on the math assignment sheet, "when you do homework with your dad". Forcing kids to spend time on something is an effective way to spoil it for them. Exploring [math] from a place of curiosity, openness, joy - so, love - is to act out of alignment. This also means that you need to start from within to develop your talent. What are you curious about, what excites you? Doesn't matter if that's math, obscure bird species or screws. There's a compounding effect here, once you're deep enough in a couple domains you're starting to see their commonalities and less explored nuances at the domain boundaries.

lblume 1y ago
> Forcing kids to spend time on something is an effective way to spoil it for them. I generally agree. However most school systems force students to learn basic math, which is generally used for testing whether the student is able to think structurally and follow simple rules. Although I agree intrinsic motivation to be extremely valuable, not doing math with children the way school intends may just lead to worse grades and outcomes.

k__ 1y ago

Music is art. It's about doing something interesting, that doesn't mean is has to be complex or complicated. OP does the right thing in sticking to simple stuff, because that's what they can control right now.

xlii 1y ago
That's what my music teacher told me. I agree but then I have that irresistible pull for "do more, complicate, extend". And with change of seasons my fingers became stiff which is annoying.

bko 1y ago

> In a very short summary - talent is time spent on learning or doing something. Which means that anyone can be talented in any area. That’s it. That’s the secret. Go, and be the next Mozart, Copernicus or Tesla (don’t be Edison, that guy was a dick). I used to believe this. Like many I was swayed by 10k hours. You hear stories like "Mozart wrote his first symphony at 8" but also hear "he must have easily been approaching thousands of hours by that point!" The one thing that convinced me otherwise is bodybuilding. Take Jay Cutler, one of the greats. He started lifting at 18 and reported that in his first year of training, he gained approximately 50 pounds of muscle, going from around 180 pounds to about 230 pounds by age 19. He quickly got his squat up to 700lb, an insane feat. This is what he looked like [1] People don't normally put on anywhere close 50 pounds of muscle in a lifetime, no matter how hard they try. Ronnie Coleman had similar stories, and started bodybuilding at 24, staying natural the first 6 years. He had to gear up to eventually reach the main stage, but he was a beast regardless. It helps when your mom looks like this [2] Talent is so obvious when you look at physical tasks. Anyone who spent significant time at the gym knows there are people that roll in every 6 months that are always strong. Or that runner that can roll out of bed untrained and run sub-6 minute miles. Sure anyone can look good and improve their performance, but some people are just talented. And to reach the pinnacle of performance, you have to be extremely hard working and extremely talented. Now apply that to every other field. [0] https://generationiron.com/18-year-old-jay-cutler-4-months-into-training/ https://generationiron.com/18-year-old-jay-cutler-4-months-i... [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/bodybuilding/comments/8p9mok/jay_cutler_at_age_18_the_year_he_started_training/ https://www.reddit.com/r/bodybuilding/comments/8p9mok/jay_cu... [2] https://www.facebook.com/GymFailNation/posts/ronnie-coleman-and-his-mother-%EF%B8%8F/1054271803397413/ https://www.facebook.com/GymFailNation/posts/ronnie-coleman-...

Etheryte 1y ago
This isn't talent, it's just steroids. It's almost funny how someone can look at that picture and not think of that.
- n4r9 1y ago
  I mean, it's going to be steroids plus genetics plus a massive amount of effort. Few people can look like that after one year of lifting, no matter how hard they try.

koolba 1y ago

The math does not check out here: > When I share recordings with family and friends I often hear that I’m talented and people are surprised that I only play for a year. I have much worse opinion about myself, but take the compliments with gratitude. > Here I’ll share the secret with all of you. The open secret that I tell to everyone who asks: I play piano 1-3 hours per day. As of today that’s probably ~1000-1500 hours. 1000 hours in one year is 2.73 hours per day. 1500 hours in one year is 4.1 hours per day. And that's 365 days in a year. If you drop it to 250 (say M-F), it's 4 hours per day (1000) to 6 hours per day (1500). If that's dedicated time, that's more in line for a full time job (or at least the portion you're actually doing constructive work).

xlii 1y ago
That's correct, it's just reality is too complicated to put in simple numbers. I play 1-3 hours daily per usual, but had 5-10h sessions sometimes. Once my family left and I sat 18h hours while practicing sounds. And yes, I play everyday, as mentioned I have other devices so on vacations/trips I always have something with me. Usually small synthesizer. It's not a full piano, but allows me to explore chords, check various finger positions etc.

z3t4 1y ago

Talent is how good you are at something. So you can have "talent" by training a lot. You can however argue that two people that are equal in skill, but one trained less then the other, do that person have more talent? Too much talent at early stage can however hinder growth to full potential because that person is not used to work hard for the gains. So early talent is not everything, but it does make things easier.

TrackerFF 1y ago

I see talent as both the potential of someone, and the capacity to realize said potential. I've written this before, but I'm also a musician - and have been for 25 years, and music was what I did prior to becoming an engineer. I've interacted with hundreds of musicians in my lifetime, and have observed thousands. Discovering "typically" talented individuals is pretty easy: - They learn fast - They excel fast - They are unusually skilled at something from the get-go. In music, this usually means that even as very beginners, they have a good pitch. Or sense of rhythm. Within maybe 3-5 years, they are at the same level that takes regular musicians 10-15 years to reach. That does however not mean that the individuals that lack the above, are not talented. I've seen people that have progressed slowly, but steadily, and become fantastic musicians. Some people will reach 90% in 5 years, others will reach 90% in 10-15-20 years. Motivation and work ethic tends to be independent skills. There are extremely talented people out there that lack motivation and work ethics, and will abandon the interest, when the going gets tough, or they simple lose interest. The people that aren't talented, are those that will never progress, no mater how much time and energy they put into it. I know people that have truly tried their best, those that have been going at it for years and years (decades even), but just can't progress beyond beginner stage. They have no sense of rhythm, they are tone deaf, and just can't muscle coordinate enough to become proficient at instruments, and can't pick up theory. (Note: this does not mean that you can enjoy making music, or have fun with music! It mostly just limits what you can play. Some genres or songs will likely just forever be out of reach)

jaynetics 1y ago

The piano piece is nice. You might enjoy Lubomyr Melnyk. I think its a good approach to discover and build upon what feels good. There are plenty of pianists that can play a catalogue of songs, or improvise "flawlessly", but rareness or uniqueness are great qualities for art to have. I'm not sure how well the same applies to work, though, where fulfilling implicit or explicit standards plays more of a role. A developed "taste" plays a role in doing e.g. a good sysadmin job, but if you're creating something unique here, any successor is likely to have a bad time, no matter how beautiful this creation seemed at the time. I do agree with the idea that passion can be a big driver in both worlds, it just seems to me that in work there's more to gain if it is harnessed to some degree.

ahlCVA 1y ago

Relevant SSC blog post: https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/31/the-parable-of-the-talents/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/31/the-parable-of-the-tal... Starting from very similar observations but drawing the causality arrow in the opposite direction (alignment follows from talent).