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

61–70 of 144 posts

Re: There is no talent

#61

Post by OzzyB »

bd wrote: post #18
maguay wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe, in the line of thinking in this essay: results = effort x time

Yes, but according to my experience, this essay is incorrect in assuming that talent doesn't matter [1]. So if you really want to be more precise: results = talent x effort x time Which means, talent is multiplier. If you take multiple people with different amounts of talent, let them work for equal amount of time on something with equal intensity and focus, you will get very different results. ---- [1] All people fr…

"Talent is a Multiplier", I think that sums up this topic quite nicely, you don't need it, but it's nice to have sum so speed things along ;)

Re: There is no talent

#62

Post by greyman »

rimantas wrote: post #38
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…

> There are people who play a hell of a lot of guitar and are > nevertheless not very good. They just repeat the same mistakes, i.e. they don't try to identify the areas they are weak in and improve on those. Mindless repetition does not bring much benefits, mindful practice does.

Yes, but in my opinion, an ability to perform mindful practice is part of what we call talent. The person you described here is exactly someone who has passion for something, but is not that much talented.

BTW, I wonder, is this some new Internet trend, trying hard to "prove" that talent doesnt exist? I wonder what the motivation is... trying to convince oneself that one can be good at anything? :-) ... just asking

Re: There is no talent

#63

Post by RockyMcNuts »

Maybe given training anyone can recall 100 digits.

However, given an equal amount of training, some people will recall significantly more numbers than others.

"The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet."

Re: There is no talent

#64

Post by lsd5you »

As others have said, this is just not really true. It is distorted thinking that is driven by a desire to see the tenets of egalitarianism in the real world.

It is as if (excuse the dorky analogy) we are all D&D characters with 100pts to spend on our qualities. In reality some people do just have more points than others.

On the other hand though, I am prepared to believe that most of the difference between individuals can be due to factors earlier in ones development, sometimes single turning points/epiphanies (e.g. having older brothers for sport, reading the right book when young ... etc.)

Re: There is no talent

#65

Post by amitvjtimub »

But what if you don't have talent to know how to be passionate about something? :)

Right amount of talent in right environment drives passion that further hones the talent. And the cycle continues.Somewhere down the line you have so much passion that right environment doesn't matter.

Re: There is no talent

#66

Post by DannoHung »

greyman wrote: post #62
rimantas wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are people who play a hell of a lot of guitar and are > nevertheless not very good. They just repeat the same mistakes, i.e. they don't try to identify the areas they are weak in and improve on those. Mindless repetition does not bring much benefits, mindful practice does.

Yes, but in my opinion, an ability to perform mindful practice is part of what we call talent. The person you described here is exactly someone who has passion for something, but is not that much talented. BTW, I wonder, is this some new Internet trend, trying hard to "prove" that talent doesnt exist? I wonder what the motivation is... trying to convince oneself that one can be good at anything? :-) ... just asking

There has been a significant shift in education to emphasize concerted effort as the most important intrinsic factor to be rewarded. That is to say, saying to someone, "Wow, what a great job, you're so smart", only serves to reinforce the notion that the accomplishment was due to innate ability, whereas saying, "Wow, what a great job, you worked so hard", instead reinforces the idea that accomplishment was due to exertion.

If it really does take 10,000 hours of practice at something to be good at it, then this isn't necessarily a bad idea for people to have ingrained upon them. Nobody has 10,000 hours of natural talent.

Re: There is no talent

#67

Post by andyidsinga »

This was a great post. It really reminded me of Malcolm Gladwell's 10000 hour rule.

So in relative terms (ex. rate of learning) I can be worse than others at something, but in absolute terms I can be much better.

Its a very interesting equation that seems to hold true for many things.

Cheers!

Re: There is no talent

#68

Post by mebigfatguy »

I completely agree. I wake up in the morning and hack on some stuff of my own for an hour or two, go to work as a developer all day, get back around 8 and hack till 2-3am each and every day. I am amazed by most of the people i meet in the profession that are work-only programmers, and have never written anything for themselves in their lives. It's pitiful. No wonder they stink.

Re: There is no talent

#69

Post by andyidsinga »

hitonagashi wrote: post #14

This viewpoint always annoys me. It's great to think that work is all there is to it, but that's not true. You can become great at anything with practice, I do believe that. What I don't believe is that there's no such thing as talent. Take chess. You really think Magnus Carlsen has practiced less in his life than Anand? Practice is necessary to become great. Talent is necessary to become the best.

good points - but haven't many of the "best" chess players beaten each other at different points? This suggests that there is no best - but best at a point in time - which suggests that practice and passion are what it is ;)

Re: There is no talent

#70

Post by todayiamme »

cynicalkane wrote: post #58
todayiamme wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think I read it in Scientific American.
Post reply on HN