I've been observing my surroundings lately, noticing an interesting theme amongst people pursuing a higher skill. Those who are impatient or stuck in a rut tend to blame a chunk of their misgivings on the lack of skill due to talent, unless they give up and throw everything away in frustration.
“I know quite certainly that I myself have no special talent; curiosity, obsession and dogged endurance, combined with self-criticism, have brought me to my ideas.” -Albert Einstein.
I have two activities that I love to death: Starcraft and bowling. First, I've been playing SC:BW since 2002; I consider myself decent, but not too good for the length of time that I've been playing. My records for BW include a few CW wins that I don't even remember and achieving a high rank of B (late season) on iccup. The other, I've been bowling since 2006. I just officially started bowling in a league so I don't have official/sanctioned records yet, but my top three game scores are 258, 266, and 279 during casual hours at a local alley. As proud as I am of these scores, I'd like to remind you that these were accomplished over long periods of time where I poured time and effort constantly by an undying interest that propelled my level of skill higher and higher.
However, I honestly consider myself someone with very little natural talent at the things I try. I started Starcraft, which was popular at the time, by playing with the kids in my grade. I was easily the worst and I would make the most ridiculously illogical decisions and come up with the stupidest ideas. For example, I thought the key to winning any Starcraft match was the ability to produce 12 zealots as fast as possible and thus, would end up having suicided 12 zealots into a line of sunkens, cannons, or supply/bunker, which by today's standards would look like the Sargas Tribe trying to break a Fastest Map player's static defense.
In bowling, I learned that you were supposed to "spin" the ball to hit the pins more successfully. I ended up trying to twist my wrists and body in positions resembling a chimpanzee tossing a coconut downhill. I think that's okay if you were an absolute beginner just starting out. However, I've continued my charades for at least a year within my respective hobbies before eventually displaying the human trait of learning from your mistakes. My point in bringing these humiliating memories out is that it takes time and patience, for some longer than others.
A while ago, I wrote a simple but specific pm about skills to DJetterstyle who was responsible for the Progamer Power Rank at the time. Shortly after, he made this thread discussing the factors that go into skill. Not only was there no instance where skill was wholly attributed to talent, but it was also largely inferred that skills come from experience, hard work, and one's ability to hone his strengths to his advantage. If you're interested in that type of discussion, you should give it a read since there were many intelligent responses given by smart individuals.
In another recent thread, there was a good piece of insight on how talented people seem to truly enjoy what they do as described in the OP. I won't take anything else from that thread since it touched upon other personal issues, but that one insight mixes well with this quote:
“Passion is a positive obsession. Obsession is a negative passion.” -Paul Carvel
Indeed, I feel those who have a positive passion for things they like would do better than people who have an obsession. Why? People who have passion love doing what they do. People who have an obsession are usually caught up in either winning or getting to a certain level that they forget about what's important: enjoying the damn thing. That is not to say people who are skilled and passionate do not care about winning at all; there is a certain amount of a winning mindset desire required to compete amongst high levels, but did Michael Jordan not love basketball to practice many hours a day, every day before finally making his high school basketball team?
Personally, I'd keep it simple. Hobbies are the paths of life everyone should explore. I take a look around me at the people close by and I would find that most of them just hate what they do. Some are stuck at the office doing mountains of paperwork, others like myself are students struggling to maintain their gpa, and there are even those who must LIVE their work such as my parents who run and worry over their business (thanks economy!) Beside reaching for a specific goal, you should not put unhealthy, unnecessary weight on something you should enjoy. When your hobby turns into something to gain profit from, I believe you'll start looking at it like a job. What I wrote were subjects of my thoughts as I pondered, so if anyone wants to create a discussion, please feel free as well and thanks for reading!
I really can relate to these thoughts you've been having as I also find myself observing and reflecting on what makes one successful at whatever it is they pursue and I believe it is as you said, perseverance and passion. I find that whenever I'm completely failing in everything I'm attempting to do I have fallen into an autopilot state where I am merely going through the motions of a former self but because for any multitude of reasons, my present self is not focused and therefore not performing optimally nor, more importantly, happily. I always arrive at the conclusion that I have forgotten why I am trying to achieve the goal and that's why I am failing so hard. Thanks for posting, I always enjoy seeing others thoughts on this.
For a lot of people with exceptional talent, things are easy come easy go. Most people you find in the world who are at the absolute top of their respective professions did not display particular talent when they first started. What you'll find in all their cases is an intense drive and a TON of hard work, but usually not more than an above average natural aptitude.
there are lots of studies about expertise and what separates them from the rest
a fun result was that for the top violin soloists at at like Rice or something, they asked the average number of practice hours per semester or something. All of the top soloists had on average 50% more practice time put in.
In addition natural talent (like those little kids that can play piano like crazy) will not take you very far alone. Those kids never end up being the top performers.
sorry i don't remember that many specifics, but its pretty interesting.
Actually, Neverborn and dekuschrub point out something very interesting. Why is it that we're so impressed with those child prodigies and people who seem to "naturally" pick up something, but usually never hear from them again?
I think of those cases like (completely made up) a car that can, at first, accelerate very fast but cap at, say, 100 mph compared to a car that accelerates more slowly, but has a potential of 150 mph. I don't know anything about cars, but that's an example of how I picture natural talent. It would be good if others shared more on this, though.
Read "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell which is a book that discovers this idea, its a very interesting book on how people become successful/talented, and to sum it up its basically oppurtunityxtime inputted into the work x the time you do the work
Its quite a cool book and you might want to check it out
I enjoyed that Einstein line, if I have a pet peeve, its people mentioning "talent" as an excuse.
However, I disagree with the last part of your post, and that second quote, obsession isn't necessarily about wanting to win. It's just an irrational want of "something", which probably has a negative effect on everything _else_. That surely can never imply that the guy with the obsession on something doesn't love that something, on the contrary.
did Michael Jordan not love basketball to practice many hours a day, every day before finally making his high school basketball team?
That's obsession to me. Yes he loves it, But it's insane and no normal person without an obsession for basketball would do it, and for that reason I don't think his life outside basketball improved that much, at least while he was still a nobody. Then that obsession carried him to incredible success.
the concept of 'talent' is too romanticized, while hard work is seen as drab and something anyone can do if they just 'tried'. honestly, sometimes it seems that the ability to be determined and apply yourself is a form of genius in itself.
On October 25 2009 02:55 intrigue wrote: the concept of 'talent' is too romanticized, while hard work is seen as drab and something anyone can do if they just 'tried'. honestly, sometimes it seems that the ability to be determined and apply yourself is a form of genius in itself.
It is the mark of a genius, it doesn't "seem like it"
Totally agree that hard work > talent. I am extremely good at a lot of different things because I have put in endless hours of hardwork into it. I have no natural talent and almost every activity I start I am actually worse than most other people who are starting at the same time. Everyone thinks I am naturally talented but they haven't seen the practice that it took to get to that level.
I truly believe that most people don't really understand what it takes to be really good at something. Most people get frustrated because they "try hard" and practice for a couple hours...or even a hundred hours at something and don't notice a huge improvement. I play the guitar and piano and people know that I practice, but they think that there must be huge component of natural talent to play so well. What they didn't see is me practicing 5-7 hours a day (no joke) for an entire year. Anybody who practiced as much as I did would have similar results.
5 star blog. I'd read it again. In fact I'm gonna save a few lines. It's soooo very important to have something in your life (THAT'S NOT A GIRL) that will make you hoot, and cheer, and laugh and giggle, every single time you do it. Most people overlook this in their lives.... But having something like that and doing it even just an hour a day can really have a significant effect on your mental health and attitude. The benefits will pour into every other aspect of your life.
One case that always bothered me was in music, the genius composer Mozart. This guy's been considered a genius and using his musical talent, established himself as one of the best composers, if not, the best of his time. He was deemed competent at the violin and piano during an early childhood and even composed at the age of 5. From what I know, no one was able to even close to touch his musical skills.
Still, I'm not fully informed about this particular case. If anyone more knowledgeable wants to comment on this and the reason why this was an exception in the 18th century classical era, please do post with some good backings on it!
you should never look down on natural talent yes, you can go far but you also have your "blood limit", which you can never surpass look for your own instead of diminishing the value of others
On October 25 2009 04:06 food wrote: you should never look down on natural talent yes, you can go far but you also have your "blood limit", which you can never surpass look for your own instead of diminishing the value of others
Could you post backings to what you say? Some credible source to support your argument? I'll accept any argument, but just saying that you can't surpass something due to a lack of natural talent just doesn't fly.
Talented people see the world differently. You cant give someone less credit for working less then others to achieve same( or sometimes lesser) goals. Your "hard work" might disgust someone with natural ability who often doesn't even care much for the outcome. Everyone has a journey, for you its ant work and sweat, for someone its wandering and philosophizing while seemingly doing nothing. I give respect to both but i rather spend time with the latter.
On October 25 2009 04:06 food wrote: you should never look down on natural talent yes, you can go far but you also have your "blood limit", which you can never surpass look for your own instead of diminishing the value of others
Could you post backings to what you say? Some credible source to support your argument? I'll accept any argument, but just saying that you can't surpass something due to a lack of natural talent just doesn't fly.
I am sure you cant achieve what Dali or Picasso did by merely putting years of hard work into it. Theres many examples, i cant believe youre arguing against it.
On October 25 2009 02:15 ilovezil wrote: Actually, Neverborn and dekuschrub point out something very interesting. Why is it that we're so impressed with those child prodigies and people who seem to "naturally" pick up something, but usually never hear from them again?
Their parents force them to practice hours a day all the time. When they get older they get the feeling they've only been doing this to please their parents, and they've lost a significant part of their life because of it. They quit because the parents can't really force their now teenage/adult offspring to devote their life to something they don't feel is their own.
If a kid does something on his or her own, he'll get very good at it... But he or she probably isn't going to practice when he'd rather play with friends. That's why he or she becomes reknowned for it in adulthood, rather than right away like someone who is forced to.
In my opinion if there is such a thing as talent, it's not nearly as big a factor as anyone gives it credit. In fact it's almost completely negligible. A faster brain isn't going to give you the experiences you need to be predisposed to success in something. A faster brain isn't going to make you draw, or write, or play an instrument better either (though it might make your practice shorter?). Say a person who is very good at math and a person who isn't very good at math (because he doesn't take math or whatever, and other than that they're exactly the same) play StarCraft. After a week, who is going to understand StarCraft better? Not the more talented one, the one who is able to relate what they know about math to what they're doing now.
On October 25 2009 04:06 food wrote: you should never look down on natural talent yes, you can go far but you also have your "blood limit", which you can never surpass look for your own instead of diminishing the value of others
Could you post backings to what you say? Some credible source to support your argument? I'll accept any argument, but just saying that you can't surpass something due to a lack of natural talent just doesn't fly.
I am sure you cant achieve what Dali or Picasso did by merely putting years of hard work into it. Theres many examples, i cant believe youre arguing against it.
So you mention a couple of renowned "geniuses" from their respective fields. It still doesn't prove they can't be bested, because who's to say that a hard working individual couldn't find a higher skill ceiling and surpass them by constantly working at it? Although I do take a stance of arguing for people who work hard over people who are talented, I'm not against keeping an open mind to accept what the other side has to say. Your arguments just don't have substantial posting.
On October 25 2009 02:15 ilovezil wrote: Actually, Neverborn and dekuschrub point out something very interesting. Why is it that we're so impressed with those child prodigies and people who seem to "naturally" pick up something, but usually never hear from them again?
Their parents force them to practice hours a day all the time. When they get older they get the feeling they've only been doing this to please their parents, and they've lost a significant part of their life because of it. They quit because the parents can't really force their now teenage/adult offspring to devote their life to something they don't feel is their own.
If a kid does something on his or her own, he'll get very good at it... But he or she probably isn't going to practice when he'd rather play with friends. That's why he or she becomes reknowned for it in adulthood, rather than right away like someone who is forced to.
I can accept that, but like the Mozart example mentioned before, I'm really shocked when I hear they achieve compositions and musical talent at 5 years old, where it's hard to consider something other than some type of natural affinity. A poster stated that kind of example is once in a millenia type of deal, but isn't there another story behind that? I'd like to hear more thoughts on this, since the discussion's been great so far!
I'm just posting some thoughts I have on this, which don't really take either stance for or against natural talent. It's just been a long time curiousity of mine.
EPT
