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

121–130 of 144 posts

Re: There is no talent

#121

Post by edanm »

PakG1 wrote: post #36
binarysoul wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me ask, what were you doing at age 4? IIRC 4 year olds have a lot of free time (to practice etc...)

Wow, you serious? You think just any 4-year-old can play amazing music just because they have a lot of time to practice? I think it'd be better to ask for a scientific study on the subject for 4 year olds, except finding an acceptable sample size would be nigh impossible.

Obviously this is only one study, but have you heard of László Polgár? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1r

He is the father of 3 chess prodigies. The interesting thing is, he decided very specifically to try and raise his children to be chess grandmasters, in an attempt to prove that geniuses can be made. Quote from his wiki article: "He is interested in the proper method of rearing children, believing that "geniuses are made, not born". Before he had any children, he wrote a book entitled Bring Up Genius!, and asked for a wife who would help him carry out the experiment. "

Quote from the article on one of his daughters, who is the strongest female chess player in the world: "She and her two older sisters, Grandmaster Susan and International Master Sofia, were part of an educational experiment carried out by their father László Polgár, in an attempt to prove that children could make exceptional achievements if trained in a specialist subject from a very early age.[3] "Geniuses are made, not born," was László's thesis. He and his wife Klara educated their three daughters at home, with chess as the specialist subject." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polg%C3%A1r

Re: There is no talent

#122

Post by sliverstorm »

jfb wrote: post #101
sahillavingia wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but he has little talent, and his success is almost purely a combination genetics and hard work (eating + training).

You don't think that there is significant technique to be mastered in world-class athletics like that?

There are of course some techniques like how you set up at the line, but running is one of our most basic functions. I am not a professional runner, but I really would expect high level running technique to consist mostly of fundamental 'dos' and 'donts' (i.e. what many sports would call 'good form'), rather than secret techniques and tricks that take old sages decades to master.

Re: There is no talent

#123

Post by w1ntermute »

> I’ve spent tons of hours in front of my computer and very often I don’t learn anything new or create something different.

Law of diminishing returns...you've already picked all the low-hanging fruit, so of course it's going to take more time for you to learn something new.

Re: There is no talent

#125

Post by Eliezer »

A pleasant, useful, highly motivating lie.

And it flatly isn't true. There's people who've written ten times as many words as I ever have, and they're still not good writers. It's not fair, but it's what is.

Re: There is no talent

#127

Post by rcd »

sahillavingia wrote: post #102
jfb wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think that there is significant technique to be mastered in world-class athletics like that?

That's mostly the trainer's job, I would think.

Mostly the trainer's job to hone technique, despite not competing? That doesn't sound right. You might want to make your point more explicitly.

Re: There is no talent

#128

Post by _delirium »

thebooktocome wrote: post #2

I think this goes triple for mathematics. When people say that I'm good at math, I sometimes tell them, "Well, you know, I've been studying math and little else for the majority of the past ten years. Almost anyone who works at something that long eventually gets the hang of it."

Hmm, of the mathematics grad students I've met, I don't actually notice a huge correlation between diligent, hardworking students and the most successful students. Some of the most diligent are just... not great at coming up with independent, novel mathematics, though they can do okay on exams. And there are some vaguely slackerly types who do great, novel work. Of course, some effort is a prerequisite, so the most slackerly just fail out of grad school entirely. But past some threshhold sufficient to be able to do the work at all, it sure looks like some sort of natural talent, or aptitude acquired at a previous stage of life, is what differentiates the mediocre from the great grad students. I can't say for certain, but unless I know totally unrepresentative people, it doesn't seem to be a matter of who puts in 80 hrs/wk versus 40 (or even 30); some of those on the low end of hours spent are very good and produce impactful theses, while some who work all the time are just not great at it.

Re: There is no talent

#129

Post by mpk »

blahedo wrote: post #112
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…

"At the risk of overgeneralizing, the most important talent is meta-analysis. You have to be able to self-analyze and self-correct." I disagree with the OP but this I can get behind. I teach at the college level, and I have seen, repeatedly, students who put in a lot of effort but get nowhere. Not a ton, but always a few each year. There's also almost always a much larger group that maybe muddle along to a passing gr…

I think the term you are looking for is 'Metacognition' or 'Meta-cognitive reasoning'. It boils down to being aware of what you are reasoning about (and subsequently reasoning about that).

On a practical level it's about analyzing your own reasoning when performing an operation and changing your reasoning based on the results of the reasoning you applied to the operation.

Being able to do 'thinking about thinking' is generally considered a good indication of sentience (whatever that might be).

Re: There is no talent

#130

Post by donaq »

andyidsinga wrote: post #107
qjz wrote: post #73

There are people who have absolutely no passion for a task, yet perform it expertly, without practice. One would have to conclude after reading this essay that these people are, in fact, talented [i.e. possess some innate ability].

it would be cool to have some examples of those people.

I can only offer you the following anecdotal example.

Back when I was doing my compulsory military service, I was really passionate about basketball. I used to play almost everyday, and there was a team in my neighbourhood with a coach I trained with twice a week. Then I met this guy in my platoon who, though shorter than me, trashed me soundly every time we played. I would have thought someone like that would need to constantly hone his skills, but he didn't. He just occasionally joined us for a game. For about a year before he completed his service I (and a couple of other guys in the platoon) trained to beat him, but never came close. The interesting thing was this one conversation we had where he confessed, "I don't like basketball. I only play because I am good."

Post reply on HN