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

Talent

felixstocker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 108 posts

Re: Talent

#51

Post by matheusmoreira »

j3s wrote: post #49

Paul Erdös once stopped using amphetamines for a single month, and couldn't manage to maintain his interest in math _at all_. and this writer claims that it must have been his talent and natural interest? lol "lean into your strengths" is a great adage, but what if my interests are mainly "watching cartoons" and "playing video games" instead of "writing lengthy blog posts about talent"? i dispute that there exists a…

Playing video games apparently prints money these days. People stream it to audiences and get paid ad money. Some random anime facts YouTube channel can also print money if enough people watch it. Cartoons? Make some Tom and Jerry memes and enjoy. People print money by making videos reacting to stuff, basically professional HN commentators posting hot takes in video form.

Totally absurd if you ask me but that's the reality we live in. Advertising completely fucks up all the incentive systems in society.

Re: Talent

#52

Post by kaladin-jasnah »

vivalahn wrote: post #39

I think as part of my 2026 goals I’ve got to learn how to shitpost half as good as some of the people that make the HN front page. These blog posts have a solid self-fellating energy to them replete with quotes from brand names that’s just too good to pass up on. A complete lack of experience talking about talent with nothing to show for it? Shit sign me up I’m all about that. I’ll have to put a twist on it. Maybe I’…

There was something squalidly satisfying in your imagery; well done. Somehow the writing style vaguely stirred a memory of the essay "On Bullshit" by Harry Frankfurt.

Re: Talent

#53

Post by geerlingguy »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #51
j3s wrote: post #49

Paul Erdös once stopped using amphetamines for a single month, and couldn't manage to maintain his interest in math _at all_. and this writer claims that it must have been his talent and natural interest? lol "lean into your strengths" is a great adage, but what if my interests are mainly "watching cartoons" and "playing video games" instead of "writing lengthy blog posts about talent"? i dispute that there exists a…

Playing video games apparently prints money these days. People stream it to audiences and get paid ad money. Some random anime facts YouTube channel can also print money if enough people watch it. Cartoons? Make some Tom and Jerry memes and enjoy. People print money by making videos reacting to stuff , basically professional HN commentators posting hot takes in video form. Totally absurd if you ask me but that's the…

Very, very few of the people who do those things make enough money to earn an income (proportional to how many try).

But the streaming platforms and game developers love that so many people do try.

Re: Talent

#54

Post by matheusmoreira »

iambateman wrote: post #22

I stopped reading after there was a quote about how amphetamines helped improve his math. Like...maybe. But I think it's pretty well understood that taking amphetamines is a net-negative for individuals and society.

> But I think it's pretty well understood that taking amphetamines is a net-negative for individuals and society.

Depends on the amphetamine. They are not made equal. It's absolutely possible to maximize benefits and minimize risks. Remember that this stuff treats attention deficit disorder.

Re: Talent

#55

Post by aloha2436 »

vivalahn wrote: post #37
omeysalvi wrote: post #18

I was impressed by the writer and glad about reading the article until I found out he works for Palantir

Why did where he works have an impact on what he said, for you?

I personally find it amusing that a semi-motivational piece about hard work and finding your niche, replete with personable anecdotes, comes from a person who works for a company based in name and function on an evil orb that corrupts everyone who touches it.

Re: Talent

#56

Post by hiAndrewQuinn »

kaladin-jasnah wrote: post #4

The author concludes that "I should make sure I sweated blood working on a strength, [and] do more of what comes naturally." Something I found was that sometimes the things I have the most passion and interest for are _not_ the things that are strengths. But they have become strengths. Today, I would consider myself to be an OS and systems programmer person. It was abjectly _not_ something that came to me naturally.…

> [S]ometimes the things I have the most passion and interest for are not the things that are [natural] strengths.

Whic implies that most of the time, they are.

And that's a good thing. If it took you years to grasp assembly and C, whereas e.g. asynchronous TypeScript is bequem for you the same way polynomials were bequem for David Hilbert in grade school, you would probably make more money, contribute more to the economy, and be an overall happier person overall working a job that is about 80-90% asynchronous TypeScript, and maybe 10-20% the interesting stuff you don't have natural talent at.

Exceptions exist to this rule but they face a double filter:

1. How are you so sure you know better than the people waving money in your face?

2. Even if you have a good reason, why are you the right person to be doing this? Wouldn't someone else whose strengths and talents already align be better still? Is it really impossible to find them and put them in that position instead?

Re: Talent

#57

Post by codersfocus »

vivalahn wrote: post #39

I think as part of my 2026 goals I’ve got to learn how to shitpost half as good as some of the people that make the HN front page. These blog posts have a solid self-fellating energy to them replete with quotes from brand names that’s just too good to pass up on. A complete lack of experience talking about talent with nothing to show for it? Shit sign me up I’m all about that. I’ll have to put a twist on it. Maybe I’…

If there's a one word takeaway of the article it's attitude, and I'm curious if someone with as foul a one as yours can compete as well. Let me know if you write something!

Re: Talent

#58

Post by codersfocus »

babblingfish wrote: post #3

This reminds me of Oliver Burkeman's insight in "Meditations for Mortals" that we can only control quantity, not quality. He suggests we focus on what's within our control: showing up consistently and doing the work, rather than obsessing over outcomes. Another piece of his advice is to choose pursuits where you have a natural aptitude. Otherwise, there's too much friction. People enjoy being competent. Haruki Muraka…

People absolutely can control quality. A simple example is handwriting, I can write chicken scratch or something neater if I slow down. Working longer on many creative pursuits will improve the quality, by experimenting with ideas.

Re: Talent

#59

Post by kaladin-jasnah »

hiAndrewQuinn wrote: post #56
kaladin-jasnah wrote: post #4

The author concludes that "I should make sure I sweated blood working on a strength, [and] do more of what comes naturally." Something I found was that sometimes the things I have the most passion and interest for are _not_ the things that are strengths. But they have become strengths. Today, I would consider myself to be an OS and systems programmer person. It was abjectly _not_ something that came to me naturally.…

> [S]ometimes the things I have the most passion and interest for are not the things that are [natural] strengths. Whic implies that most of the time, they are. And that's a good thing. If it took you years to grasp assembly and C, whereas e.g. asynchronous TypeScript is bequem for you the same way polynomials were bequem for David Hilbert in grade school, you would probably make more money, contribute more to the ec…

This seems to place interest and talent as equivalent. The issue is that while I might be talented at TypeScript, I have zero interest in it. I know this because I got paid an unreasonbly high amount of money as an undergrad to write async TypeScript code and do full-stack development.

The conclusion is that I would not be an "overall happier person" from this, even if I could be great at it. Besides, long-term, I would not be great at it, since my lack of interest implies a lack of motivation to succeed at it. And it was a real waste of time when it came to my goals in systems.

Interest plays a big role beyond talent. I would feel more fulfilled being a mediocre dog-killer than an excellent something-else. Either way, interest feels almost equally as important as talent to me. Interest can sometimes make up for what I lack in talent. To succeed at what I want to do, I am more than happy to put in twice the time as someone with natural talent.

Re: Talent

#60

Post by Animats »

I've known some people with serious artistic talent. Even if they didn't like it. It seems to be inherited. A friend who was a good graphics artist (drawings in Smithsonian) has a son and a daughter. The daughter can draw well, but doesn't use the skill much. The son grew up drawing cars, and now he draws car designs for a major car company. For both of them, it wasn't all that hard.

One unusual skill is the military "coup d'œil". This is the skill of looking at a battlefield and maps, and knowing what to do to win. Some commanders have this, and some don't. Bolger, in his "The Panzer Killers", comments on which WWII generals had it and who didn't. (Bolger is a modern US general who has commanded tank units in combat, so he has experience with this.) This seems to be a skill that does not come from training and experience - either you have it or you don't.

The US Army tries to understand this.[1] This writer claims it is a trainable skill, but the training required is long. You have to fight a lot of battles, real or simulated. Even then it may just be bringing out the ones who have the innate talent. There aren't that many good generals. Each generation has only a few greats - Giap, Patton, people like that.

[1] https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Eng...

Post reply on HN