|
As someone who stands as an advocate of "ultimate opportunity for all", I usually do not give too much stock to the merits of "natural talent". By natural talent, I refer to an unusual display of accelerated learning in an individual. I have discussed my thoughts rather thoroughly before in a previous thread.
Now, what I've preached before was that the ultimate end product of several years and decades of hard work is indeterminate, meaning it is not always the specially chosen talents will always bring home the glory. Don't underestimate the underdog. Never get too cocky, or someone will rise up and dethrone you faster than you'd imagine. Yes, I've always been the one to root for the underdog.
![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_1Yso0CgLFWk/Se91Bcu9fsI/AAAAAAAAAcM/Ysrbe2fhYwE/s320/4batmansuperman.JPG)
True Underdog
Some people take the disadvantages they have against those who are "gifted" and ultimately use them as stepping stones to reach that seemingly unattainable platform. In this case, I think about Rudy from Notre Dame and how he made it into a great football team in an extremely prestigous school, against all odds, to make history in high school football like never before.
![[image loading]](http://www.premiere.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/football-movies-2/617714-1-eng-US/Football-Movies-2.jpg)
A true hero.
Sadly, I think this doctrine of mine acted as a double edged sword. In my case, I felt no pressure from anyone as the underdog. Whether it's in my studies or in pursuit of a special skill, I found that if no one expects great things from you, you can always gloat over any victories over the smart or talented ones, while crawling back into your "average guy" shell if you lose.
In fact, there is talent. There are reasons why people who spend the same amount of time as you are better than you or worse than you at any given field. They culminate the combination of their own talents, hard work, and perseverance to reach the level you see so high. To jump that gap, if you learn more slowly compared to them, the basic formula tells you to put more into hard work and dedication. If that is not enough, you need to work around another learning method with different people to get you further ahead.
![[image loading]](http://www.aspiringminds.in/main_images/training.jpg)
Where do I, where do YOU fit on this graph?
Now, I am living with a scholastic talent, one that was right under my nose. My younger sister in second grade right now, is able to complete reading at the fourth grade level while working on math 3rd or 4th grade level. Because she reads and understands at such a high level and solves math problems up to long division, the teachers at her school purposely give her work that higher grade levels complete. They call her a genius. Upon hearing that self-imposed taboo, I feel a mix of pride, sadness, and envy. What my sister learned under the same conditions as I had back in grade school, she breezed through as if it were childsplay (hah).
I still hold the same ultimate views on giving everyone a chance to stand atop the skill graph. Provided one puts enough work, sticks with it long enough, and uses the right learning methods, I believe anyone can reserve that special spot above the rest. However, not EVERYONE can reserve that spot. I referred to the example with my sister's academic talents to demonstrate you will encounter people that just seem to have that gift, regardless of whatever truth you hold. The reality is that competition out there is less merciful, the higher you climb on that proverbial ladder of skill and success.
“Use what talents you possess; the woods would be very silent if no birds sang there except those that sang best.” - Henry Van Dyke
I like this quote because the way I interpret it, nothing is reserved for only the elite. "Talent" comes in all different forms; you never know what different element someone can bring to the field.
Ok fine, I was partly inspired to write this blog because I'm getting smashed hardcore on iccup and lost $50 betting against some 230 average hustler in bowling and wanted to randomly rant. Tilt :/
|
People learn differently though. What might be ideal conditions for her (the standard school system and its' methods) certainly don't work for everyone. Albert Einstein being the obvious exception to cite. The problem is we dont all get to find out the best methods for ourselves for a variety of reasons (fear/ laziness)
I'm a d play on iccup if you want to fuck me up some for some confidence ^ _^
|
|
|
On July 30 2010 08:13 ella_guru wrote:
People learn differently though. What might be ideal conditions for her (the standard school system and its' methods) certainly don't work for everyone. Albert Einstein being the obvious exception to cite. The problem is we dont all get to find out the best methods for ourselves for a variety of reasons (fear/ laziness)
I share the same views. Still, it's true that you'll have to encounter that one person who'll smash you around like a punching bag and beat you no matter what you try. Those are the worst because you feel like you have no understanding of the situation whatsoever and gets to you psychologically (bw, studying, sports, whatever).
Like I said, I still hold a broad view of high level competition, but everyone has those moments where you just wanna faceplant straight to the floor.
|
Canada2480 Posts
|
I came across a great quote recently, and it said, "Genius is eternal patience". Don't despair, just work harder. Easier said than done of course.
|
I hear ya man... I've enjoyed gaming a lot more since I stopped caring so much if I win or lose. I just try to learn and do my best and because of that I can pick up the game or put it down whenever I want. Same with school I just gave up on all A's and went for my best and my stress lowered. Everything is much more fun now and I am more successful than ever.
|
I feel good when I'm reading your blog(s). You definitely have a talent for writing. 
I also think that one should use whatever talent one has. I had really really good grades in high school without ever having to work very much for them and ofc I thought I was very clever and talented (lol). It was a huge shock for me when I first started university and I realized that here I was nothing special. Nowdays I take pride in always trying my best and not losing focus of my goals.
(edit) there is a beautiful swedish proverb: "Better listen to a broken bow string than to never draw a bow." (It should be something like that in English...)
|
In matters outside of 100m sprints I really doubt that talent exists.
That's not to say that you haven't had more obstacles in your way than your sister has had. You have. But I would think that that is more a result of nurture than nature. It doesn't really matter if you have a few more brain cells if you have a bad teacher. It doesn't matter if you can't memorize as much, if you have friends to learn with. The advantage that she had over you was the environment in which she grew up, and that's something that you can change. Obviously it will be harder for you than your sister, but there's no physical barrier stopping you.
edit: she's in second grade? all the better then, you have time to beat her 
|
Isn't the ability to work hard sometimes a talent?
|
Talent definitely exists. I got a 2400 on my SAT after 4 hours of studying.
|
On July 30 2010 10:30 love1another wrote:
Talent definitely exists. I got a 2400 on my SAT after 4 hours of studying.
Yet you need instructions on how to hug someone..funny world..
|
On July 30 2010 10:30 love1another wrote:
Talent definitely exists. I got a 2400 on my SAT after 4 hours of studying.
This sort of thing has already ben dealt with. Go bang some shanghai chicks.
|
Lol. I gotta stop ruining blogs with bad jokes. I actually studied a lot in the past... The four hours purely refers to the month before the test... But it sounded a lot more badass right? Why can't we like tattoo SAT scores on our bodies. Why can't the volume of our penises correspond to the number of perfect scores we get on standardized tests? Why can't our attractiveness to women correspond to the number of national academic recognitions we have earned?
Fuck talent. Talent doesn't get you Shanghai chicks.
|
On July 30 2010 10:41 love1another wrote:
Fuck talent. Talent doesn't get you Shanghai chicks.
You just won me over ^ _^
|
On July 30 2010 09:40 Hidden_MotiveS wrote:
Isn't the ability to work hard sometimes a talent?
That's how I see it. Even with talent, I believe that you need lots of practice + hard work to be able to succeed. Nevertheless, there are still some people that are able to get away with relying purely on talent.
|
On July 30 2010 10:45 YoonHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2010 09:40 Hidden_MotiveS wrote:
Isn't the ability to work hard sometimes a talent? That's how I see it. Even with talent, I believe that you need lots of practice + hard work to be able to succeed. Nevertheless, there are still some people that are able to get away with relying purely on talent.
If you mean compete at a relative level with less practice than others, yes there are those who may get by with talent. However, all things come around. First of all, you don't know how much time that person's already invested into the skill, and what quality investment that time consisted. I could probably learn more in one hour from a pro than I could in a whole month by myself. Second, there is absolutely no way you're going to get by at the absolute pinnacle of competition without constant hard work, with VERY few exceptions such as Mozart during his time. There are so many hardworking individuals trying to grab that top reserve for themselves that it's impossible for any one human being to simply "get by with talent".
Sure you may find those who seem to pick up concepts and motor skills almost on the go, but as I see it, it breaks down like this:
Those who learn super fast at an early stage, let's insert person A, will soar in the learning curve, but more than likely whittle out after a while. Those who learn slowly, let's insert person B, can still cover a lot of area by finding what works for them, then soar in skills later. Of course, this isn't always how it works, but I believe it is generally how it is. Either way, I believe it's important to look at what level A and B stand in the end.
Plus, it feels that much better when you win as the underdog, knowing you got by with hard work and dedication.
|
I dont get the mozart thing :S
|
As I understand from reading someone's comment in that previous blog, I believe Mozart had some type of mental condition. If I remember this correctly, he was able to use that "handicap" to further his musical abilities, while suffering otherwise.
I'll have to look it up to make sure, though. Also, music is within a realm I dare not touch :p
|
On July 30 2010 11:04 ilovezil wrote:
Those who learn super fast at an early stage, let's insert person A, will soar in the learning curve, but more than likely whittle out after a while. Those who learn slowly, let's insert person B, can still cover a lot of area by finding what works for them, then soar in skills later. Of course, this isn't always how it works, but I believe it is generally how it is. Either way, I believe it's important to look at what level A and B stand in the end.
What you say may have a biological underpinning, and when we are talking about the realization of a person's genetic/physical potential this is might be a very valid point in that some people experience "growth spurts" (both mental and physical) at different times of development.
On the other hand if we aren't so much talking about the realization of that true potential but rather just getting to a socially acceptable level of proficiency, this is rarely the case. What ends up happening is that the people who start ahead end up getting further and further ahead in a sort of positive feedback loop.
I think Malcolm Gladwell wrote a piece about how a small advantage in reading ability at a young age often snowballs into a huge advantage later, simply because that additional reading ability actually encourages the child to read more than his/her relatively disadvantaged counterpart.
And since very few things in life, with several exceptions like the Olympics or Pro-scene Broodwar, really require any of us to push a skill to our physical limits, this later argument (of reaching a socially acceptable level) is probably far more notable. To be successful in life, isn't being able to read the books you need to in school, and memoranda at work completely sufficient?
I could give many more specialized examples, but I think the point is pretty clear:
for >99% of the population, the presence of what we consider "extraordinary talent" is irrelevant to societal productivity and long-term happiness.
|
On July 30 2010 11:26 love1another wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2010 11:04 ilovezil wrote:
Those who learn super fast at an early stage, let's insert person A, will soar in the learning curve, but more than likely whittle out after a while. Those who learn slowly, let's insert person B, can still cover a lot of area by finding what works for them, then soar in skills later. Of course, this isn't always how it works, but I believe it is generally how it is. Either way, I believe it's important to look at what level A and B stand in the end.
What you say may have a biological underpinning, and when we are talking about the realization of a person's genetic/physical potential this is might be a very valid point in that some people experience "growth spurts" (both mental and physical) at different times of development. On the other hand if we aren't so much talking about the realization of that true potential but rather just getting to a socially acceptable level of proficiency, this is rarely the case. What ends up happening is that the people who start ahead end up getting further and further ahead in a sort of positive feedback loop. I think Malcolm Gladwell wrote a piece about how a small advantage in reading ability at a young age often snowballs into a huge advantage later, simply because that additional reading ability actually encourages the child to read more than his/her relatively disadvantaged counterpart. And since very few things in life, with several exceptions like the Olympics or Pro-scene Broodwar, really require any of us to push a skill to our physical limits, this later argument (of reaching a socially acceptable level) is probably far more notable. To be successful in life, isn't being able to read the books you need to in school, and memoranda at work completely sufficient? I could give many more specialized examples, but I think the point is pretty clear: for >99% of the population, the presence of what we consider "extraordinary talent" is irrelevant to societal productivity and long-term happiness.
Interesting point. I haven't looked at those types of sources, but they make sense. I tend to look at the full extent of human potential all the time, but what you said is very true considering that a good, motivating environment is extremely important in helping one's growth in skill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
