Does "talent" exist?

Never content to settle for less, I frequently spent my valuable high school in-class hours pondering the big questions. A new one came to me while I was trying to think of a cool day job to nail down during my adult life. My thoughts ultimately drifted to “motivational speaker,” since they absolutely rake in the cash for doing one of my very favorite–and, from what I hear, many peoples’ least favorite–hobbies: public speaking.

From the little bit of research I had previously conducted, it seemed that all a motivational speaker needs is a good angle. What would mine be? I’d want to be able to, as they say in the industry, “awaken the potential in others,” since I’ve often enjoyed self-awakening my own potential. This got me to thinking. What typically stops potentially rockin’ folks from reaching high levels of rockin’-ness?

My eyes open, I spotted the perfect example soon after I posed the question to myself. A fellow math student was bemoaning his continual street racing losses. From what I was able to piece together, even he and his tricked-out Acura couldn’t compete with some of the experienced drivers on the public roads today. “I just don’t have the talent,” he said.

“Talent.” That’s what’s killing motivation everywhere. Otherwise happy citizens the world over have this ugly concept called “talent” stuck in their heads, obstructing progress like a tumor with a frowny face magic-markered on it. If you aren’t born with “the talent,” they reason, you can’t succeed.

How ridiculous. Why in the world would people put a self-inflicted psychological cap on their ability? Whenver I talk to anyone who’s skilled at anything, they don’t say it happened because of innate talent. Rather, they go on and on about the long hours (years, in many cases) of practice, the occasional crushing defeat and the eventual sweet payoff.

Say someone’s a great martial artist. Did they emerge from the birth canal by doing a kata of perfect roundhouses, able to threaten anything in their path with Dim Mak? As cool as that would be, of course they didn’t. They practiced.

“But Colin,” you say. “You don’t know about that. Practice doesn’t make perfect. I saw it.” Sure, raw practice isn’t the only ingredient to success. You’ve got to practice intelligently and use your brain every now and then. Django Reinhardt lost the use of multiple fingers in a fire, and yet he’s still regarded as one of the greatest guitarists of our time. He couldn’t practice like the rest of us, but he invented his own method that shot him to stardom.

From all available evidence, it seems to me that talent–one’s apititude to increase one’s skill–doesn’t exist. The aged bitter write this off as youthful idealism or something along those nonsensical lines. “Okay, Colin. Don’t listen to me. I’m just older and wiser than you, that’s all.”

(Could somebody please explain to ninety percent of the adults in this world that being born earlier than their children does not give them bragging rights? Being alive is not, in itself, an accomplishment, as evidenced by Fred Durst.)

This is the general question I pose: Does “talent” – as defined here – really exist, or is it a human construct with little grounding in the mechanics of the real world?

I feel that talent does exist to a certain degree. For instance, someone whose brain/ears are hard-wired to be able to better discriminate between closely spaces audio frequencies than might be a more successful musician than their peers.

I don’t think of talent as “one’s aptitude to increase one’s skill”, but as “one’s aptitude to increase one’s skill in a certain area”. People’s brains are not all wired the same, nor do they all have the same physiology. It stands to reason that some people would be better at certain skills simply because they are designed (for lack of a better word) in a way that makes them better.

Perhaps the karate blackbelt has faster reflexes than your average human. Perhaps the fast sprinter has more fast-twitch muscle fiber than normal. Perhaps the genius computer programmer is mentally capable of breaking down a desired action into it’s most fundamental steps with less mental effort than most people. Perhaps the world-renowned physicist has a more efficient brain (and thus higher IQ) than 99% of the population.

But I don’t think that talent is as big a deal as most people make it out to be. I wouldn’t be surprised if most people who are deemed to have talent just really, really like doing what they’re seen as being talent in. It’s easy to put a lot of effort into something that you love doing. And while practice doesn’t always make perfect, it at least makes better.

Think of an award given to someone. You can’t get that award, you are not talented enough to recieve that award. Does this make sense to you? Consider every sports and entertainment award, talent, that’s what makes it an award.

Maybe you could write us a quick sonnet, or some prose, maybe throw a football 200 yards. Make me laugh for an hour straight, cook me a meal that makes me forget all others. Play an instrument in a way that makes me want to cry, or sing.

Guess you don’t have the “talent”. Next time insult people you can keep up with, those with real talent are far beyond you.

Talent is a combination of genetic positive predisposition to excellence in a certain domain of skills, and genetic positive predisposition to enjoyment of practicing a certain domain of skills. This combination gives talented people a head start in a certain domain of skills, and quickly enables them to get much better, much more quickly.

If you’re no good at something, and dread the thought of putting in long hours just so you can go from horrid to barely acceptable, then you have no talent in that area, and never will.

To be fair to the OP, he doesn’t seem to be denigrating people claiming to have talent, but instead is refering to talented people who claim that there is more to achievement than an initial giftedness. The clue is that talent certainly won’t make you succeed on its own: you also need to put in a lot of work. But on the other hand, if you don’t have any talent at all, no matter how hard you work, you won’t succeed.

In this sense the biblical parable is actually rather apt. Consider you start with a certain sum of money: if you don’t invest it, you won’t make any gains. But if you don’t start with any initial capital, you won’t be able to invest and make profit either.

Hence it’s not an ‘either-or’ but rather an ‘and-and’. You need talent as a starting capital, but to build it into something worthwhile you have to put in a lot of work, too. Hence people with less talent may overtake more talented but lazier people.

Just my take…

10% inspiration, 90% perspiration.

There is natural talent but you have to work your ass off too

The balance of initial talent vs. later work changes depending on the domain.

In mathematics (especially today) it is important to have a mathematical mind, but also much more important to keep up with the latest literature – and there is tons of it. Coming up with something original and significant requires decades of intense study simply because there is so much prior work and it all ties together. This is less so in the hard sciences where one can specialize without losing sight of relevant work. In math, it’s all relevant.

In modelling, on the other hand, it is important to be beautiful and that’s about it. As long as one doesn’t go on eating binges, exercises regularly, and takes a few months’ worth of modelling / acting classes, one can cash in on one’s genetic gifts.

Talent plus practice is huge. Talent alone can get you by. Practicing something you are inherently not good at will get you very little, if anything.

Just for example, I practiced guitar for years, and just couldn’t get it. I practiced piano for years and could barely manage songs that I wrote. I’m not a musician, even though I wanted to be, and all the practice in the world won’t change that. Compare that to a 6 year old who with a month’s teaching can bang out some Chopin.

Natural talent exists. Some people find their talent, some never do. Some people have no talent for anything, true, but to say that anybody can do anything at high level simply by practicing is not true.

I should add that merely talent and practice won’t get you shit if you don’t have an interest in whatever subject you’re trying to succeed in. IMO, you need all three for accomplishment. For me, I have a high level of interest in cars, racing and computers, thus I’m already ahead just because of interest. Start working on these things like everyday, and I became good at them. Interest + practice = talent.

The example of the street racer failing racing was probably because of the Acura (Just kidding!), no really though. My guess was he was failing because all he wanted to do was win win win, but he lacked interest in what matters most about racing cars - performance, focus and a good understanding of how the car works as a whole. People think they can just buy any ole’ car, throw nitrous on it and win. No, what’s gonna happend is that you’re gonna get beat pretty bad by someone who really into.

There’s a great article on this subject. It’s called “The Mundanity of Excellence,” and it’s by Daniel F. Chambliss, a professor of sociology (and a friend of mine from our undergraduate days). It appears that you can download (legally, even) the article at this website, assuming you can handle pdf files:

http://www.pineforge.com/BookItems.aspx?pid=8769&sc=1

Chambliss studied top-notch swimmers and tried to determine what determined how well they succeeded. He concluded that the notion of “talent” was useless for describing anything related to their success. Mostly it was determined by how hard they worked at the right sort of training. There were some physical factors too, but it would be more useful to say that a certain sort of body type made it easier to succeed.

Which is the only relevant talent when it comes to sports. If you’re born with a fast metabolism and a muscular body, you’re genetically positively predisposed for success in sports.

Methinks the good doctor likes playing word games.

Of course talent exists. Haven’t you ever met someone who just breezes through high school with very little effort? Or someone who works their arse off, but still can’t quite make it at their chosen profession?
Sure, determination and practise helps, but it is far too simplistic to suggest that natural talent has no role.
-Oli

But what use is it calling that “talent”? What you’re doing when you say that “talent” explains why someone is better at something is creating a trashcan category for anything that you don’t have a good explanation for. If, for any given activity, you are able to find pre-existing factors that explain someone’s success beyond mere practice, you should explicitly list those factors. Saying that they have more “talent” justs means that you don’t have any explanation. Be honest and say that you don’t have any explanation.

And read the Chambliss article before you criticize it. There’s more in it than my summary indicates.