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

111–120 of 144 posts

Re: There is no talent

#111

Post by narag »

_delirium wrote: post #82
narag wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to be a political thing, running during the last hundred years or so. The left likes the tabula rasa approach: if everybody can be a genius, then we need to have a public education system that equalizes the chances. The right prefers the genetic explanation, because it justifies that rich people keep their fortunes in the family: intelligent people's sons are more likely to be intelligent, so it makes sense…

I can see how you get that association, especially when discussing education and wealth disparities. But I think there's also a strong association in the reverse direction (I haven't figured out quite how the two interact). To me, the sort of Puritan conservative approach is "keep your head down, work hard, and you'll succeed", and emphasizes practice, paying your dues, being a diligent worker, slowly moving up the l…

Well, I wouldn't call it an association of mine. It's thoroughly recorded in history, the soviets and all that.

Puritans? They're alien to me, except for Quicksilver, that I've read a week ago. I think you're right that they're not in the same axis as european parties. But that doesn't invalidate my point: that this question is ideology (or religion) more than science.

Re: There is no talent

#112

Post by blahedo »

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 grade but don't understand why they don't understand more.

What both groups have in common is an inability to learn from their own errors. They can listen to what I say, and absorb some of it, and they can read the book, and absorb some of it, and after they've gotten something wrong they can come back, talk to me or a tutor, and absorb a little more. (Maybe.) But the more productive route by far is to look at the specific thing they got wrong, and learn from that, "fix" the specific misunderstanding that misled them. And whether by inclination or ability, they don't do that. And despite spending big chunks of time on my class, they don't do very well.

I do think there is such a thing as native talent. There pretty much has to be. But I think that the skill of meta-analysis can account for a large percentage (not all) of what is usually chalked up to "talent".

Re: There is no talent

#113

Post by ghaff »

rue wrote: post #85
emehrkay wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel that things could be broken down so that anyone could understand. Those scenes in movies where the teacher finally breaks through to the kids by relating the subject matter to something that they care about may seem like bs, but I feel that approach really works. I think that is the foundation of the argument for smaller classroom sizes -- the teach can focus in on how to target each student's learning style i…

Most people can learn to be OK at most things, with enough time or a "breakthrough". A significantly smaller number can be great at them.

Bingo. The comment with the highest signal-to-noise ratio on this thread.

Speaking for myself. I am (though don't do much directly along these lines anymore) a decent engineer and programmer. Nothing spectacular. But I definitely struggled with more advanced math and physics. I have no doubt that had I majored in, say, Math and spent the same amount of time I did on my engineering degree it would have been very difficult. Yet, I knew people who considered Math an "easy" degree at the same school.

Re: There is no talent

#114

Post by timdellinger »

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…

I'll highlight an interesting phenomenon with respect to your assertion that the most important talent is meta-analysis: the effect of a coach.

Some people have no capacity at all for meta-analysis, but succeed because they have a great coach. Someone to give them direction and feedback and strategy and who will make sure they are making maximum use of their opportunities.

This cuts both ways: marginal musicians can have great managers and producers that will insure success for (seemingly) any warm body that fits the mold. Hence the "boy band". Similarly, fantastic musicians that don't always see the bigger picture and have their finger on the pulse of the industry might fail. (substitute any endeavor for "music" in this case).

Re: There is no talent

#115

Post by jchonphoenix »

Actually, this expertise is a rather well studied topic in cognitive psychology. If I remember correctly, people become experts after 10,000 hours of practice.

Additionally, there is very little variation due to talent. Most "talent" comes purely from practice.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, this just what I remember from lecture in my cog psych class.

Re: There is no talent

#116

Post by narag »

the_left wrote: post #99
narag wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to be a political thing, running during the last hundred years or so. The left likes the tabula rasa approach: if everybody can be a genius, then we need to have a public education system that equalizes the chances. The right prefers the genetic explanation, because it justifies that rich people keep their fortunes in the family: intelligent people's sons are more likely to be intelligent, so it makes sense…

Hi, I actually don't think it's politically incorrect to mention inherited intelligence is necessary in some endeavors. Just impolite, if the person you're speaking to needs a higher level of inherited intelligence. The point of public schools is to prevent a calcified aristocracy from emerging. Inheritance isn't deterministic, and recessive genes exist. If we don't give everyone some bare minimum shot to improve the…

I think it's becoming politically incorrect by means of an activism campaign. That's an uncomfortable thing to stand against. The trick here is precisely what you point to: it's very easy to take the question to ad hominem territory. If you say that hard work is not enough, they will say that's because you're an elitist.

About the public school system, I didn't mean to put its origin in socialism (I believe it predates socialism), but to describe a mindset. In fact, I believe it works. Soviets powered the chess in the education system trying to prove that they could surpass corrupt capitalism... and they succeeded. I mean they succeeded dominating chess. But IMO that's not enough to prove anything :-)

Re: There is no talent

#117

Post by billswift »

cloudbrain wrote: post #94
sausagefeet wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone have a good definition of talent?

Malcolm Gladwell defined talent as "the love of practicing". That's the best definition I've heard.

That would be a better definition of "passion" than of "talent".

Re: There is no talent

#119

Post by [deleted] »

cma wrote: post #71
lwhi wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>No; height is a physical attribute. What are our brains made of again?

[deleted]

Re: There is no talent

#120

Post by lwhi »

cma wrote: post #71
lwhi wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>No; height is a physical attribute. What are our brains made of again?

Why the up votes? I still don't understand.
Post reply on HN