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

31–40 of 144 posts

Re: There is no talent

#31

Post by bijanbwb »

It's great to see that someone else "gets" this. There's a lot of great research and evidence that supports your thesis, and I don't think that the majority of the population has any idea that it exists. People still seem to be enthralled with this idea that there are geniuses out there who never had to work hard or practice... as if Jimi Hendrix just picked up a guitar and played it to perfection without ever practicing for a second.

For anyone interested in the research in this area, there is a great piece from Harvard Business Review by K Anders Ericsson called The Making of an Expert. And Malcom Gladwell's Outliers is also a fun read on the topic.

I think we are currently demystifying the process of becoming "talented" at any given endeavor. The quicker we realize that we aren't "born to x" we can begin to put in the work necessary to make it look like we were "born to x."

Re: There is no talent

#32

Post by parbo »

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.

Re: There is no talent

#34

Post by zachallaun »

As many commenters have already stated, this essay clearly mischaracterizes both talent and passion.

In truth, both can coexist together. In fact, both are pieces of the same puzzle. As mechanical_fish pointed out, passionate but untalented people exist. And guess what? Talented but dispassionate people exist as well.

There was an article here on HN recently, discussing common creativity blocks. The article mentioned a certain study which found that, once a certain IQ threshold was reached, creativity no longer scaled with IQ. They became independent of one another. The same is likely true for passion and talent, with the ultimate effect being on ability. Once you reach a certain threshold for both, an increase in one will increase your ability to ultimately perform a task. This accounts for situations like those of the author, where a low perceived talent had little effect on his ability, as his passion was so great. It also accounts for situations like those described by mechanical_fish, where a person has not reached a certain natural talent threshold, and can therefore not increase his ability substantially through passion alone.

Most people have one in spades, and enough of the other. Those that have tons of both -- well, that explains savants.

Re: There is no talent

#35

Post by sudont »

eof wrote: post #22
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)…

He doesn't know , but many many people have composed a lot of music, many with as much passion as the OP has put into computers; but Mozart and a handful of others stand out as something above and beyond. What, if not talent, is what separates the great from the very-good?

Well, what’s wrong with practicing your whole life to only be in the very-good, the excellent? There’s only 5-10 people who are absolute heroes in any discipline.

It’s like saying: "I’m not going to be Einstein, so why bother learning physics if I’ll only author 60 papers?"(insert correct number)

Re: There is no talent

#36

Post by PakG1 »

binarysoul wrote: post #30
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.

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.

Re: There is no talent

#37

Post by tspiteri »

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 agree with you. I don't know why some people have no trouble believing that you have to be the right size to be a top weight lifter, and that you have to be the different right size to be a top marathon runner, but then they believe that everyone has got what it takes to be a top musician or top mathematician.

Re: There is no talent

#38

Post by rimantas »

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.

Re: There is no talent

#39

Post by eof »

sudont wrote: post #35
eof wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He doesn't know , but many many people have composed a lot of music, many with as much passion as the OP has put into computers; but Mozart and a handful of others stand out as something above and beyond. What, if not talent, is what separates the great from the very-good?

Well, what’s wrong with practicing your whole life to only be in the very-good, the excellent? There’s only 5-10 people who are absolute heroes in any discipline. It’s like saying: "I’m not going to be Einstein, so why bother learning physics if I’ll only author 60 papers?"( insert correct number )

There is nothing wrong with it. The OP says "there is no talent." I was just agreeing with the argument that talent, in fact, does exist (and matter).

Re: There is no talent

#40

Post by lwhi »

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 world is (and always will be) an unfair place. Some people have a head-start on the others. These are the people with talent.

Nothing is impossible - and I believe we can always overcome adversity .. but some people will have to fight harder.

Post reply on HN