Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

There is no talent

timeless.judofyr.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 144 posts

Re: There is no talent

#51

Post by tokenadult »

cynicalkane wrote: post #28
edanm wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really disagree with you. You say you could never compose music like Mozart, but how do you know? What if you worked at it every day for the rest of your life? Are you really certain you could never reach his level? (And bear in mind he is an extreme case.) You should read this piece by Derek Sivers called "After 15 years of practice...": http://sivers.org/15-years . Quick excerpt (but really, read the whole piece)…

Mozart was a guy who was on his way to possibly becoming history's best maker of music, except he died an unfortunately early death at the age of 35. He was writing tuneful, listenable, harmonious music at the age of four . This is a level of talent far beyond what Sivers was talking about.

Mozart had a father who was a well practiced musician himself, and Mozart's father was an innovator in music education. Wolfgang Amadeus got an early start in studying music, and his dad was also relentless in promoting his career. A lot of people who may have had more "innate" talent didn't grow up with those environmental advantages.

Re: There is no talent

#52

Post by cynicalkane »

todayiamme wrote: post #45
cynicalkane wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozart was a guy who was on his way to possibly becoming history's best maker of music, except he died an unfortunately early death at the age of 35. He was writing tuneful, listenable, harmonious music at the age of four . This is a level of talent far beyond what Sivers was talking about.

I am afraid that mozart at the age of 4, more or less played the works of Bach et al. to audiences after 2 years of strict practice with his father. (He saw that his son had interest in music when he would patiently sit through his sister's lessons and then he started pushing him to see how far he could go) The Mozart we know didn't emerge until he was a teenager and he started composing at the grand old age of 13. Y…

I don't understand why you think this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i-SzzhUtws&feature=fvw

Re: There is no talent

#53

Post by zuckerborg »

jameskilton wrote: post #10

100% disagree. I could try my entire life and I will never be able to sing like Josh Groban, or compose music like Mozart, or win the Iron Man Strongest Man competition, or beat Lance Armstrong in the Tour de France. Yes, a LOT of success comes from effort, but to say that talent doesn't exist is absurd. People who have a talent in a given field, AND work with and hone that talent will always do better than people wi…

I don't the think this article is 100% incorrect. Here's why: the author of the article is, in actuality, talentless. He has no talent. That part is true. He even states that the people impressed with his computer skills are those without any skills themselves. They were simply impressed by the 'magic' he was able to do with something they didn't understand. He's correct in understanding this his feeble skills are no indicative of any real talent. He is average in every sense of the word. He got that right.

Re: There is no talent

#54

Post by icegreentea »

mechanical_fish wrote: post #26

You will look around and find other people at your age who are way better than you at playing guitar... in reality, all they did was starting earlier than you or have been spending more time doing it. I don't want to disagree with this essay... to first order. But it's important not to take the emphasis on passion too far. Because this hypothesis doesn't explain the existence of passionate but untalented people. Such…

Largely agree with you here. But I actually think the most important talent is being good at practicing. This ties in a bit with self-analyzing and self-correcting, but also the ability to put yourself through crushing amounts of practice over and over.

The pinnacle of human performance is formed by the intersection of those naturally talented, those who are passionate, and those who have the talent for practicing.

I put talent for practicing separate from passionate just really based on that lovely coach's slogan 'practice makes nothing, perfect practices makes perfect'.

Re: There is no talent

#55

Post by todayiamme »

cynicalkane wrote: post #52
todayiamme wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am afraid that mozart at the age of 4, more or less played the works of Bach et al. to audiences after 2 years of strict practice with his father. (He saw that his son had interest in music when he would patiently sit through his sister's lessons and then he started pushing him to see how far he could go) The Mozart we know didn't emerge until he was a teenager and he started composing at the grand old age of 13. Y…

I don't understand why you think this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i-SzzhUtws&feature=fvw

No actually I read that his so called "compositions" at that age were heavily guided by his father and were merely modified improvisation of Bach/other pieces he was taught. The Mozart we know didn't emerge till a later age.

By the way, I don't mind being wrong. So, let's figure out the truth and I'll email you, okay?

Re: There is no talent

#56

Post by crocowhile »

parbo wrote: post #32

Of course there is talent. Talent is when you're good at something without having done it before. Perseverance is required to become great, talent is optional. Being talented may trigger the passion required to persevere.

I agree. If you don't believe there is such a thing as talent, it means you never met anyone really talented.

Re: There is no talent

#57

Post by Flankk »

mechanical_fish wrote: post #26

You will look around and find other people at your age who are way better than you at playing guitar... in reality, all they did was starting earlier than you or have been spending more time doing it. I don't want to disagree with this essay... to first order. But it's important not to take the emphasis on passion too far. Because this hypothesis doesn't explain the existence of passionate but untalented people. Such…

You make a good point but I have a few qualms. I agree that there exist a lot of passionate guitarists who play poorly. Speaking as a guitarist, guitar is an extremely difficult instrument to learn to play and master. The amount of time involved in learning to play guitar and play it well is huge. I argue that passionate but untalented people only exist because they are partway through the learning process or because of a loose definition of passion.

Re: There is no talent

#58

Post by cynicalkane »

todayiamme wrote: post #55
cynicalkane wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why you think this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i-SzzhUtws&feature=fvw

No actually I read that his so called "compositions" at that age were heavily guided by his father and were merely modified improvisation of Bach/other pieces he was taught. The Mozart we know didn't emerge till a later age. By the way, I don't mind being wrong. So, let's figure out the truth and I'll email you, okay?

Where did you read this? Musicology journal? Popular biography? Oprah Magazine? In academic musicology unsubstantiated theories and hearsay are unfortunately the rule and not the exception, but in general it should be considered bad practice to so plainly contradict conventional wisdom without giving a convincing reason to do so.

Re: There is no talent

#59

Post by lwhi »

rokhayakebe wrote: post #50
lwhi wrote: post #40

There is such a thing as talent. Talent is a natural aptitude for an activity. Sometimes a person's physical and psychological make-up naturally aligns with the requirements for a specific task or group of tasks; it's entirely reasonable to state that such a person has talent. Passion is important - it's what makes your journey seem less like work, and is what will keep you focused regardless of results. However, the…

Would you say being 6.9 feet tall is a talent for a basketball player?

No; height is a physical attribute.

When a group of physical and psychological attributes or characteristics, combine to achieve favourable performance in a specific activity - talent can be a result.

EDIT: although passion (or interest) is key too.

Re: There is no talent

#60

Post by s-phi-nl »

By Retric at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1647291

"The following men won gold in a solo swimming even in 2008.

  "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Phelps
  "6 ft 4 in
  "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Bernard
  "6 ft 5 in
  "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%A9sar_Cielo_Filho
  "6 ft 5 in
  "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Tae_Hwan
  "6 ft in
  "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oussama_Mellouli
  "6 ft 3 in http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/beijing/TUN/Oussama+Mellouli/217537
  "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Peirsol
  "6 ft 4 in 
  "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Lochte
  "6 ft 2 in   
  "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosuke_Kitajima
  "5 ft 10 in 
  "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maarten_van_der_Weijden (10 km marathon)
  "6 ft 7 1⁄2 in
"Height is not the most important factor in swimming, but out of 10 people, only one was under 6' and he is still taller than average. Now look at something like size of hands and they are going to stand out even more. Practice may be able to get an average person to the 90th percentile in most things but once you start talking about 99.99% DNA becomes extremely important."

(If you upvote me, please upvote the original comment as well: I'm sure Retric would appreciate it)

Post reply on HN