Hard Work Vs Talent?

Reon

Reon

Midnight's Garden
MBTI
Questioning?
Enneagram
5w6
I've been doing a bit of reading, as I always do, and a particular question crossed my screen, "Does it matter that I was never good in XXX subject?" This brought up quite a few questions. Some individuals believed that hard worked equals everything, no matter how intelligent you are, you had no upper hand on anyone who is willing to work harder than you to be on the same skill level. Others believed that natural, innate, talent mattered to a point. If you want to be in the higher echelon of your particular subject of interest, if you have a natural ability at it you will do better speaking in the long term (I believe someone cited a studied that stated that if two similar people are both trained equally in a subject (Think job training, for example), the person with an innate ability at the subject that is being trained will always do substantially better than the person without the talent. I don't recall the study, but I believe that the book "Soar with your strengths" by Donald clifton speaks on the subject)

Basically, this turns into a passion versus talent argument. What do you all think?

Personally, I think that it is better overall to have passion more than talent. You can be exceptionally skilled at something and yet completely hate it. If you're extremely passionate, while you may not have the natural skills, you can practice until you're fairly competent in your ability. Now, with that being said, real life wise, I think it's very important that you find a subject that you can do both in.
 
regardless of how much talent you have, you'll always get better with practice :) i think if you're doing it as a hobby, definitely do something you're passionate about, to hell with innate talent, but if you're doing to earn an income, it's probably better to gauge your skill levels realistically. no point starving and doing something you love, food's gotta be put on the table first ;) if you're lucky enough to have talent AND passion for something that'll earn an income, then you can pretty much take it as far as you want to go.

i'll add that through practice though sometimes you can uncover talents you never knew you had, so it's probably better to approach it with optimism and a belief in yourself!

great thread btw Reon :)
 
April said:
regardless of how much talent you have, you'll always get better with practice :) i think if you're doing it as a hobby, definitely do something you're passionate about, to hell with innate talent, but if you're doing to earn an income, it's probably better to gauge your skill levels realistically. no point starving and doing something you love, food's gotta be put on the table first ;) if you're lucky enough to have talent AND passion for something that'll earn an income, then you can pretty much take it as far as you want to go.

i'll add that through practice though sometimes you can uncover talents you never knew you had, so it's probably better to approach it with optimism and a belief in yourself!

great thread btw Reon :)
Click to expand...

Yep. "Nature has bad quality control". I don't think we're all created equal (Don't take this out of context. I mean that we develop certain skills more aptly than others.)

Question: How much does the environment affect talent. Is talent created at home by the environment or is it something that people find that they already have.
 
Last edited:
There is no easy answer to this.

It depends on a whole host of factors.

I tried a few different ways of wording this but I think a little story is the best way to illustrate what I mean.

A guy named Anthony Robbins was hired by the American military to use NLP to make their shooters more accurate.

He took their best shooters and used the modelling technique to figure out the strategy they use to be so good.

He then taught this strategy to the new recruits and there was a huge increase in the skill level. Even the recruits who couldn't shoot for shit before suddenly became expert shooters.

One of the recruits made a suggestion in regards to the strategy that was being taught which made the strategy even better.

The people who were previously the best shooters didn't think of this suggestion. It took an outside observer to the technique to spot it.

The moral of the story is: If you automatically do something without thinking i.e. innate skill, then you don't put much thought into what you are doing. You just do it.

Sometimes it is in fact better to start out rubbish at something and learn to do it because you have to consciously think about each step which may end up leaving you with more skill than the people who are naturally good at it.

Just because someone is better at something than you doesn't mean they always will be.
 
I dunno, I think this would be something very difficult to gauge just because, in my experience, people have passions for things at which they have natural talent. Which is to say, if one's talents meld with something, they're passions usually follow. I don't think I've heard of a particular time in which someone had an incredible passion for something he or she did badly.

However, I'm very much acquainted with people that are incredibly intelligent having no motivation and failing at things that should have been their forte. And people with sub-average intelligence really applying themselves and doing things with their lives.
 
Tremolo said:
I dunno, I think this would be something very difficult to gauge just because, in my experience, people have passions for things at which they have natural talent. Which is to say, if one's talents meld with something, they're passions usually follow. I don't think I've heard of a particular time in which someone had an incredible passion for something he or she did badly.
Click to expand...

What never seen American Idol? Lolers.

:m107:
 
Lucifer said:
What never seen American Idol? Lolers.

:m107:
Click to expand...
Okay, yeah... But I'd call that incredible passion for being on TV and the fantasized life of a rockstar (I've played many rock shows, and that's not how it is). Those people's "passion for singing" probably won't last long after they've been denied their reality show.
 
interesting topic.

i used to underestimate the importance of natural talent or ability. I can't say it doesn't matter. I wasn't good at a lot of things in school. But i excelled in a few areas fairly well. Of course it took hard work, but i pretty much bought into the idea that all it took was hard work because that family/school/society drilled this idea into our heads that this is all you need to succeed. This is not true in all cases unfortunately.

We each have varying abilities in different areas, and although i don't think anything should be used to justify not trying or working hard, it wouldn't be fair or right to say talent doesn't matter either. It does. Someone who is very talented in an area may, not need to work as hard, to succeed. While someone without that talent may work very hard all their lives on something they are passionate about and still not do very well.

I'm not arguing that talent is everything, nor can passion be everything. I've been passionate about things before but i failed to take into account that it would probably take more than hard work to succeed at it. Which is why comparing ourselves to others is not always a good thing. We can always strive to be the best but sometimes, natural talent or ability, will win out.

It's really not a clear cut either/or issue.
 
Last edited:
Baring things like basketball where there are physical requirements... practice is everything. And even in basket ball there is an effective minimum height... and then more doesn't necessarily help. We may have "talents" but they are just things that we have slightly more practice on some related subject. (So people who are good writers probably read a lot... which is why they are good writers).
 
Poetic Justice said:
There is no easy answer to this.

It depends on a whole host of factors.

I tried a few different ways of wording this but I think a little story is the best way to illustrate what I mean.

A guy named Anthony Robbins was hired by the American military to use NLP to make their shooters more accurate.

He took their best shooters and used the modelling technique to figure out the strategy they use to be so good.

He then taught this strategy to the new recruits and there was a huge increase in the skill level. Even the recruits who couldn't shoot for shit before suddenly became expert shooters.

One of the recruits made a suggestion in regards to the strategy that was being taught which made the strategy even better.

The people who were previously the best shooters didn't think of this suggestion. It took an outside observer to the technique to spot it.

The moral of the story is: If you automatically do something without thinking i.e. innate skill, then you don't put much thought into what you are doing. You just do it.

Sometimes it is in fact better to start out rubbish at something and learn to do it because you have to consciously think about each step which may end up leaving you with more skill than the people who are naturally good at it.

Just because someone is better at something than you doesn't mean they always will be.
Click to expand...

To continue on with your analogy, do you think the inventor of the skill would be better at using the skill himself or do you think that the individuals with the natural talent for the overall area might be better able to use it or come up with new inventions based off of what the inventor has done?

Random insert: I tend to think of this subject in the terms of an RPG spreadsheet. Everyone starts with a nice allocation of starting skill points and stats based on genetics and what have you and then people have starting bonuses based on genetics as well (For example +10 to vitality for every skill point you invest into your endurance stat). You can stat grind to increase your skill points and become better at a particular skill but you'll never get the starting bonus someone else has.

Edit: Practice. I'm not sure if practice is everything. Of course, I could be forgetting that life over an extended time teaches you many skills and ability that can usually transfer to others skills and abilities. Hence why some people seem more 'natural' at something is because they have exercised the type of thought needed to perform an action and, as such, see a short cut much quicker than the individual who is starting from scratch. But. How do we explain geniuses and normal people who invest the same amount of time into something, and yet the genius seems to out perform the normal person completely. I'll admit, I'm thinking more child genius with this to reduce the whole experience with other similar thinking patterns and practice vibe.
 
Last edited:
Just for the record, my opinion goes towards talent having more to do with things than the average poster. That's just what I've observed. I tend to be big into genetics as well.

As far as talent goes, I think everyone pretty much has an upper limit as far as how skilled they can get at a single thing. By that I mean, they can practice something and get better and better at the thing until it kind of stabilizes, and then they'll stay at pretty much the same skill level as long as they stay in practice. Where that upper limit is depends on natural ability, in my mind.
 
In dancing, I think it's like technicality vs. artistry... :)

well... for me nothing beats hard work. A person with an innate talent of something can not excel more than the person who works hard for the same goal as the person with innate talent if that person with the natural talent doesn't work hard for that goal... bwahhaha that was repetitive and confusing :) :)

BUT..... there's a BIG BUT.... :) :) I really think that YES a person can study the techniques.. a person can acquire a lot of skills, a person can work hard to get all the skills and techniques needed BUT there's something with the person with INNATE talent that makes them shine more.. it makes them different and more noticeable.

what more if the person with innate talent develops and works hard for the needed techniques and skills?........ then BOOM that's nice!! :) :)

Techniques and skills can be learned... but talent.. it's something natural.. it's in you.. and it's God's gift. :) :)
 
"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverance.
Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.
Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts.
Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent."

- Calvin Coolidge
 
TheDaringHatTrick said:
"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverance.
Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.
Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts.
Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent."

- Calvin Coolidge
Click to expand...

Aren't there also a lot of people who persevere to little or no benefit, due to to lack of talent, genius, education, and the like?

Coolidge should have applied the same scrutiny to persistence and determination before declaring them omnipotent by default.
 
I'm going to throw out a book I read recently called Outliers... someone please argue for me >.<
 
TheLastMohican said:
I read Blink, and liked it, so now I want to read Outliers. Please explain the gist of it?
Click to expand...
Mastery of anything requires a certain amount of practice... however there are some circumstances that allow for more opportunity to actually practice.

there are some other factors such as a paraplegic can't become a concert pianist. Also after a certain point a higher IQ or more "talent" can only help so much. Works kinda like the ecconomic law of diminishing utility.

It's basically a vote for hardwork.
 
Last edited:
I think passion < Talent in the scheme of things... but the true threat is the guy who is passionate and talented ;)
 
Practice and hard-work are not everything. I really dislike how in American schools we teach kids at a young age that if you work hard and try your best, you can be anything you want. That sounds nice and magical, but it is not true. Sometimes you will just suck at something no matter how much you practice, and some things you will always fail. That's life.

I think to be truly great at something, it takes hard work, talent, and a host of other things. For example, who you know can really be beneficial. Your personal history can change a lot of things as well.
 
mf said:
Practice and hard-work are not everything. I really dislike how in American schools we teach kids at a young age that if you work hard and try your best, you can be anything you want. That sounds nice and magical, but it is not true. Sometimes you will just suck at something no matter how much you practice, and some things you will always fail. That's life.

I think to be truly great at something, it takes hard work, talent, and a host of other things. For example, who you know can really be beneficial. Your personal history can change a lot of things as well.
Click to expand...

I definitely agree with the first part of your statement. I have always been awful at math since my sophomore year of high school. I probably spend three times the amount of time on studying/homework than the average student, but still performed poorly on tests and quizzes. I studied my heart out for about a week for a test that i had yesterday in calculus 2, and I am pretty sure i failed it, and this is my second time in this class. i do not have this issue with any other subject. I am just simply awful at math, particularly, calculus. My brother, on the other hand, studies for an hour before the test and performs exponentially better than me on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top