Does everyone have a talent?

In My Humble Opinion
21

Yeah, just look at how many high school athletes or musicians are first string/ first chair starters, then look at how many end up actually excelling on a professional level. Big fish in a small pond become little fish in a big pond.

I don’t know that everybody has an outstanding talent, or if they do they just haven’t discovered it yet, or it’s just a talent so obscure that it doesn’t pop up on any radar. I imagine plenty of otherwise wholly functioning people pretty much meet the definition of “Average Joe”.

22

Meh, I don’t know if everyone has a talent, but I disagree strenuously with the last bit. There are just some abilities that some people don’t have and no amount of practice will help. Musical ability is probably the best example of this. I have zero musical talent. Tried to teach myself piano, took years of guitar lessons and … nada. But I know people who can sit down at a piano for the first time and pick out tunes by ear. I think their brains are literally wired differently than mine.

23

I would have to disagree with everyone that talent is natural, because quite frankly there is no evidence to support it. Mozart wasn’t a “genius”, he just had a father who was a composer who exposed him to music at an early age. His so called talent was developed as a result.

People don’t have anything innate or special about them I think. It’s a matter of what you are exposed to and when you continue to do. A skill practiced becomes talent.

But no, no one has talent. It’s made not natural. I also say that the “haven’t discovered it” but is just a dodge people make up for those with no obvious skill, it also propagates false hope.

24

This is in line with all of the other threads you have started.

Lots of children of composers were exposed to music at an early age. Very few end up composing such groundbreaking works.

25

Do you deny that humans are incredibly diversed? That some of us are born smart and some of are born not-so-smart? That some of us are born with excellent motor coordination and some of us are naturally clumsy? That some of us have high verbal ability while some of us are more mathematical and spatial and still others are average in everything? Do you think we’re all have the same temperments, same amount of self-control, and same degree of conscientiousness and grit?

I don’t know if I believe that everyone has a talent for something, but I certainly believe that innate characteristics and proclivities exist. Humans have a “talent” for verbal communication compared to their simiian cousins. What explains this, if not for innate genetic traits?

26

I don’t think that has anything to do with talent. More like luck.

27

Icarus has already posted exactly my initial thoughts on the matter.

I will add that I think some people were never given the opportunity, the thought, or the ability (such as financially) to pursue their talent. So they grow up into an adult that appears to have no talents, when that is not the case. If they had just been given the opportunity, the ability, or been encouraged at the right time with the right item, they too would have a visible talent as it would have been nurtured.

And really, steronz also has a case I think is valid. Talent to me really seems like the ability to practice something 10,000 times and still not be tired of it, combined with your brain’s ability to process all the practice you’re giving it.

28

I wouldn’t call verbal communication a talent, it’s just another format of communication. No different than what other animals do:

Also I would say humans are diverse per se, by the environments they grew up in are. So it isn’t anything innate but more like what is developed in order to succeed in different environments.

What proof is there that such people are truly more mathematical and spatial than others rather than that just being how they were raised. It doesn’t prove anything being innate. Plus you would also have to factor in self fulfilling prophecies as well. Certain aspects are genetic, but I think any sort of proficiency in a skill is learned with environment playing a large role. I mean genetics plays a small role in intelligence compared to environment.

I think the claim of natural gifts is more of a self esteem boost than anything else. A way to reinforce the sort of uniqueness we crave for some reason. Humans are more like clay and shaped a certain way, but still made of the same base material. Barring any sort of serious illness that is.

29

Jot down some notes at random. Let’s see how lucky you get.

30

I meant that out of many greats, some get that lucky break.

31

To me that also seems like a dodge. While it might be true that people with opportunity to develop themselves might do good, that’s still more about learning a skill or ability and not talent.

Also that 10,000 times aspect is still practice and not talent. Anyone who puts in that amount of time will be good, but that doesn’t mean they will be recognized.

32

His talent was a bit more than so called. And if there was nothing special about him, why don’t all the children of all musicians/composers develop the same level of proficiency as Mozart? Why are we all not Mozarts or Liszts?

Look through this list. There are a little over a hundred individuals in the voice/piano-organ/winds/strings categories, going back a couple of centuries.

Why are there not millions? Nothing special about the talents of any person, right?

I looked at a couple of the younger ones at random:

Parents weren’t musicians. An uncle is mentioned, also not a musician. Played piano well enough to get broadcast at age 4.

OK, if a normal person took 4 years of piano lessons, they might be proficient - this kid did it while most kids are still trying to figure out how to go to the bathroom or speak. Most kids don’t read at 4. Composed his own music by the age most kids are doing ABCs.

But not talent, he.

I can’t play the piano, so I guess I am as talented as Farrell was?

There are plenty of other examples, all of which I’m sure you’ll ignore.

Speaking of which, I can’t believe I let myself get suckered into another of your threads.

33

It feels as though there is something missing in there that would explain such a performance. But it doesn’t prove the existence of talent. Just because I can’t explain what it is doesn’t mean it’s talent.

I also wonder if that story might be fudged just a little. That whole story seems fishy.

The reason not all become famous is luck. Some get recognized and some don’t.

But as I said, people love the “gifted”/prodigy explanation because it’s just a boost to self esteem and furthers that feeling of uniqueness.

Then there’s the bit about “talent” being arbitrary.

But as I said, that doesn’t prove talent, just recognition.

34

From whence did Mozart Sr.'s evident musical skill in turn derive?

35

If all Mozart was had been “the child of a composer, so it follows he’d be a composer”, the Bachs would still be breeding kids who’d start composing before starting kindergarten, Diego Theotokopoulos would have been a painter instead of an architect… being the son of a musician allowed Mozart’s talent to be recognized early and cared for, but the talent needed to be there.

36

I just ran into a quote which seems to fit our OP’s attitude, with my apologies for the retranslation:

“Mediocre spirits usually condemn anything which happens to be beyond their reach”. François de la Rochefoucauld

37

I’ve always thought that if I lived before modern times I’d be the village idiot. Not a lot of use back then for someone with computer/analytic skills born to average folk.

Reminds me of a tale about the Bulgars when they were still roaming the Russian steppes. If they found someone was clever, always suggesting new ways to do things, they’d hang him.

I guess being the village idiot isn’t so bad a job …

38

Economic comparative advantage is based on the idea that everyone has different talents. Each person has an advantage in a particular endeavor that allows them to be more productive than the average person. They can then trade their advantage to someone else for the advantage that person has in another field. This increases the total goods for both parties than if either tried to produce both goods.

39

Talent.

Just because you refuse to call it that, it’s the definition that the rest of society uses.

It was just one random story I pulled from the list. OK, let’s call it fishy - how are we to explain away all the others?

Yeah, but you can call a 4 year old “gifted” and a “prodigy” all you want, pay for him a radio time slot. Won’t mean a thing if the kid can’t play a note. By most all accounts, other than yours, a 4 year old playing the piano proficiently is talented.

OK, let’s look back at Farrell. It says he was determined to have perfect pitch. You can’t teach this, no matter how hard you try, no matter what the profession of your parents was, no matter how else you try to explain it away. That’s a talent few possess.

What about exceptional memory? You can take all the memory training exercises you want, but you won’t be able to compete against a person who has an exceptional memory.

But since just a handful of people in the world exhibit such a talent, we must conclude that they have no talent?

40

If you put me and Michael Jordan on a basketball court, who would be better, me or Michael? Go ahead and think about it for a minute, you don’t have to answer right away.

OK, it’s Michael, I guess. Now why is Michael Jordan better than me? You know, we could write a list, and it would be a long, long list. He’s taller. He’s stronger. He’s faster. He’s got huge hands. If you made up a bunch of physical tests, Michael Jordan would beat me at 98% of them. The only ones he’d lose would be some convoluted ones, like ability to fit into a small box. So his physical gifts are well known. Plus he’s got drive and determination and teamwork, and on and on.

But plenty of other people have his physical gifts, but aren’t famous basketball players. Like Abioye Nzeogwu. You never heard of him? He was a dirt farmer that lived in West Africa in 1300 AD. He was big, strong, fast. And he was a terrible basketball player, because basketball hadn’t been invented yet. He was really good at plowing, and nobody in his village could carry as many baskets of grain as he could, he was amazing at carrying grain baskets.

OK, but back to me. Why is it that Michael is a famous basketball star, and not me? There are players who are recognized as talented and physically gifted, which Michael was. And there are players who aren’t as gifted, but make up for it with hustle and heart and outworking everyone. Like Michael did. In other words, he not only had physical gifts beyond almost everyone else, he also outworked everyone else. He had the raw talent and raw physical gifts, and applied the hell out of them.

So it’s not enough to just work harder, or apply yourself, or get a lucky break. You also have to be the kind of person who that work will pay off for. There are thousands of kids who worked just as hard as Michael Jordan, and were standouts on their High School teams, but never made it to the pros. Because they didn’t have his strength and coordination and intelligence. I could work twice as hard as Michael Jordan, and play basketball every minute of every day since I was 5 years old, and I’d still suck at basketball.

Are there tasks I could beat Michael Jordan at? Sure, he might not be nearly as good as me at mental arithmetic, or trivia memorization. Put me up against Michael on Jeopardy, and I’d probably do pretty good. And why is that? Because my memory is pretty good. And I’ve also spent years reading and learning stuff, rather than out on the basketball court. But plenty of people read the same facts and figures that I do, but they can’t retain them. So why can I do it? It’s not just work, in school lots of other kids worked much harder than me, and struggled to get B’s. Most classes I could breeze through and earn an A with little work. And so what? There were also people who worked harder than me and were smarter than me, and now they’re running companies while I’m underemployed, because although I’m smart I’m also bone lazy.

So is “being able to work hard” a talent? Because I can work hard on things I care about, I just don’t care about lots of things that other people care about.