NationStates Jolt Archive

I've heard the quote "Hard work beats talent if talent doesn't work hard" many times in my life, however, I've often found that the opposite is true, that someone who has a ton of talent at something can beat out someone who works really hard at it.

So, NSG, what do you think is more important to have in any given activity, talent, or the dedication to work hard?

I'd say that hard work generally wins over talent in the long run. There is always a point where talent alone ceases to be sufficient. Of course, having a combination of the two (even if it's a lot of one and just a little of the other) works much, much better.

The aphorism does seem to prove itself time and time again.

Someone with talent who does not work at all will ofte be beaten by someone who works their ass off but does not have much talent.

But - someone with talent who works at things a bit will do better than someone with little talent who works their ass off.

Which is exactly what your quote says.

I think that in the cases you are refering to with the people with talent doing better - they probably do actually put some work in.

I've heard the quote "Hard work beats talent if talent doesn't work hard" many times in my life, however, I've often found that the opposite is true, that someone who has a ton of talent at something can beat out someone who works really hard at it.

So, NSG, what do you think is more important to have in any given activity, talent, or the dedication to work hard?

Both no amount of hard work will over come a complete lack of talent but I think hard work has the greater effect

Pshah, talent.

I don't work hard, I just scoot by on talent.

Yes, well, to cite a specific example I can relate to, there are plenty of musicians who don't work very hard and have no talent that end up becoming million selling. Why else would Paris Hilton release an album?

I find that Hard work can overcome talent, If talent is not working at all.
someone really good at baseball.could lose if they arn't giving it their all, you know?

Yes, well, to cite a specific example I can relate to, there are plenty of musicians who don't work very hard and have no talent that end up becoming million selling. Why else would Paris Hilton release an album?

Wow. this is so very true.

I don't believe hard work can ever beat talent at anything. No matter how hard I work, I'll never ever be able to create good music. Or dance.
You can achieve good average with really hard work and lacking talent, but you'll never beat someone who just is talented.

Meh there is no such thing as talent. All those people with it are just practiced and work hard.

I don't believe hard work can ever beat talent at anything. No matter how hard I work, I'll never ever be able to create good music. Or dance.
You can achieve good average with really hard work and lacking talent, but you'll never beat someone who just is talented.

I think you are taking it a little too literally. It is not about comparing someone with zero aptitude who works hard against someone who is talented who works very little. Like many many many sayings it does not work at the extremes.

However - even talented people cannot create good music without hard work, and even great dancers still practice every day. Are all the dancers in national ballet groups talented? Hell yes. Do they work hard? You bet your ass they do. Are there lots of equally talented dancers who did not work as hard who are not on national ballet groups? Yes. Are there dancers who are naturally more talented than some who are in the groups but did not work as hard so did not get in? Yes.

Meh there is no such thing as talent. All those people with it are just practiced and work hard.
That'd be a nope. Both as a writer and a musician I got pretty far without working very hard at all. I was better than most right out of the box. However, people I started off better than were able to surpass me just by working their butts off while I apparently assumed I would get better by 'magic.'

That'd be a nope. Both as a writer and a musician I got pretty far without working very hard at all. I was better than most right out of the box. However, people I started off better than where able to surpass me just by working their butts off while I apparently assumed I would get better by 'magic.'

Agreed.

Talent/Aptitude define your potential.

Hard Work and Effort define how much of your potential you achieve.

I kind off agree with that. i think that You can only get so far with hard work and then talent boosts the hard work you stick in. Sought off. I think above xplains it better ;)

Talent is going to always beat out hard work. Simply trying really really hard isn't going to be enough if you don't have any kind of gift for whatever it is you are working at. Then again if along with talent a person also has laziness, then it really doesn't matter how much of an inherent gift someone has, it will be turned worthless.

That'd be a nope. Both as a writer and a musician I got pretty far without working very hard at all. I was better than most right out of the box. However, people I started off better than were able to surpass me just by working their butts off while I apparently assumed I would get better by 'magic.'


Naaa sorry I just plain don't belive you.

Are you really telling me that you have never practiced writting nor music, that you were just born with the knowledge of both? You never went to shcool to learn grammar, and spelling?

Talent is going to always beat out hard work. Simply trying really really hard isn't going to be enough if you don't have any kind of gift for whatever it is you are working at. Then again if along with talent a person also has laziness, then it really doesn't matter how much of an inherent gift someone has, it will be turned worthless.


And again you are wrong. You, me, anybody can go out right now and learn to do anything we want to. Yes it may take time to get good at it, and more time to get really good at it, but practice really does make perfect.

I offer the following challange, name one just one person who is expert in their field who never practied at it?

As far as I can tell, if you just don't 'get' math, you'll never reach the top tier of things. Sure, you can work your ass off, study, memorize, and pass by rote...

I've heard the quote "Hard work beats talent if talent doesn't work hard" many times in my life, however, I've often found that the opposite is true, that someone who has a ton of talent at something can beat out someone who works really hard at it.

So, NSG, what do you think is more important to have in any given activity, talent, or the dedication to work hard?

The point of the quote is that if you have talent and slack off completely, other people without your talent who do work hard will surpass you. No matter how talented you are, at least some work is involved.

As far as I can tell, if you just don't 'get' math, you'll never reach the top tier of things. Sure, you can work your ass off, study, memorize, and pass by rote...


All that means is you find it hard. I don't get maths, which means I have to work hard at it whenever I have to use it, it don't mean that I can't ever use it. Unless I just give up.

I think talent has a big part, but you don't get top marks in exams by just lying around all day doing nothing. You have to work hard as well.

All that means is you find it hard. I don't get maths, which means I have to work hard at it whenever I have to use it, it don't mean that I can't ever use it. Unless I just give up.

I didn't say you can't use it. I mean to say, you'll only get so far. You aren't about to go anywhere very special in math.

I think talent has a big part, but you don't get top marks in exams by just lying around all day doing nothing. You have to work hard as well.

Actually, I tend to ace all my math exams, and I'm a lazy bum.

Naaa sorry I just plain don't belive you.

Are you really telling me that you have never practiced writting nor music, that you were just born with the knowledge of both? You never went to shcool to learn grammar, and spelling?
Well, for the spelling and grammar...have you read my posts? I'm not a shining star in either of those categories...

Yeah, I was taught the sax and I did practice...a little...but I certainly with a few exceptions didn't work hard at it. The horn just came easily to me, and when people who it didn't come as easy to worked their butt off they ended up playing better than me, which is what woke me up to the fact that no matter how easy the horn is for me to play, I still have to work at it if I was to make a living on it (which is the moral of the discussed quote).

As for the writing, I got into that completely as a lark. There where already aspiring writers in the program who hoped to make their living at that. I needed an extra 3 units to avoid paying back my student loans, half assed a script the night before and got it on stage. Two Kennedy Center collegiate awards, a residency, scholarship etc later and I still wasn't working that hard on the scripts-so the guy who wasn't necessarily as good as me when he started worked his butt off and actually practiced his craft and is now a finalist in a prestigious screenwriting competition and I'm here yakin' with you all before I go off to do some mindless production job. I've gone back to the school we both came from and they asked why it wasn't me. If I had known that phrase it would have been the answer.

hard work hurts my head. i'm quite happy with my ability to get reasonable grades with minimal effort. anything i don't have a talent for is not worth working at. as i'm not going to enjoy the work what's the point?

And again you are wrong. You, me, anybody can go out right now and learn to do anything we want to. Yes it may take time to get good at it, and more time to get really good at it, but practice really does make perfect.

And for someone who has pure talent at that same skill, they can cut off the time it will take someone else to work hard to learn the same. They will have a jump over the mere "normal" person. How is the talented person not going to be better off then the one who has to spend all the extra time to get to the same skill level? And simple hard work isn't going to put you on an equal level in certain areas that depend on talent like musicians and artists. Talent WILL trump everything else no matter how hard you work at it.

I offer the following challange, name one just one person who is expert in their field who never practied at it?

I am not sure I understand. Are you asking for a name of a person who studied in a certain field but then never used their new knowledge and instead did something else with their life?

Yes, well, to cite a specific example I can relate to, there are plenty of musicians who don't work very hard and have no talent that end up becoming million selling. Why else would Paris Hilton release an album?

paris hilton released an album because she is rich and famous. same with kevin federiline.

did paris' album sell well? i know that federline's has been an abyssmal failure.

but they do represent 2 other important aspects of success--luck and contacts. if paris hilton had had the bad luck to be born poor, she would be working the counter at dennys. if federline had never married brittney spears he would still be an unknown today.

luck and contacts are probably more important than hard work and talent. although no one ever succeeded without those 2 things.

Well, for the spelling and grammar...have you read my posts? I'm not a shining star in either of those categories...

Yeah, I was taught the sax and I did practice...a little...but I certainly with a few exceptions didn't work hard at it. The horn just came easily to me, and when people who it didn't come as easy to worked their butt off they ended up playing better than me, which is what woke me up to the fact that no matter how easy the horn is for me to play, I still have to work at it if I was to make a living on it (which is the moral of the discussed quote).

As for the writing, I got into that completely as a lark. There where already aspiring writers in the program who hoped to make their living at that. I needed an extra 3 units to avoid paying back my student loans, half assed a script the night before and got it on stage. Two Kennedy Center collegiate awards, a residency, scholarship etc later and I still wasn't working that hard on the scripts-so the guy who wasn't necessarily as good as me when he started worked his butt off and actually practiced his craft and is now a finalist in a prestigious screenwriting competition and I'm here yakin' with you all before I go off to do some mindless production job. I've gone back to the school we both came from and they asked why it wasn't me. If I had known that phrase it would have been the answer.



Ahhh well there ya go then.

I think people get talent mixed up with 'find some things easyer'

I find it very easy to pick up new things(before hitting the wall) but those people whom we say are talented, are not, they have just practiced.

And for someone who has pure talent at that same skill, they can cut off the time it will take someone else to work hard to learn the same. They will have a jump over the mere "normal" person. How is the talented person not going to be better off then the one who has to spend all the extra time to get to the same skill level? And simple hard work isn't going to put you on an equal level in certain areas that depend on talent like musicians and artists. Talent WILL trump everything else no matter how hard you work at it.



I am not sure I understand. Are you asking for a name of a person who studied in a certain field but then never used their new knowledge and instead did something else with their life?

Nope I'm asking you to name anybody that you think is talented, and then we'll see if it is talent or hard work and practice.

I'm thinking of Eric Clapton, who without a doubt is a very talented guitar player. Cept he started playin at around 14 years old, so I guess it is not talent that makes him sooo good, just practice.

Don't get me wrong, I'll not deny that some people have a natural amplitude for certian things, this aint talent though.

I get A*s in Spanish, French and English, but conversely, to get above a C in maths, I need to actually put some effort in.

Yes, well, to cite a specific example I can relate to, there are plenty of musicians who don't work very hard and have no talent that end up becoming million selling. Why else would Paris Hilton release an album?
Ah, but as anyone who listened to her overproduced debut would know, Hilton gets by through having others do the hard work for her.

As to the actual question, if I ever thought that something I was doing could be counted as "hard work", I'd stop.

Nope I'm asking you to name anybody that you think is talented, and then we'll see if it is talent or hard work and practice.

I'm thinking of Eric Clapton, who without a doubt is a very talented guitar player. Cept he started playin at around 14 years old, so I guess it is not talent that makes him sooo good, just practice.

Don't get me wrong, I'll not deny that some people have a natural amplitude for certian things, this aint talent though.

well if you want to redefine terms .....

i dont suppose you realize that eric clapton had a natural musicality that he developed into a professional career. if he had sucked at music like most 14 year olds do, he could still have worked hard and not gotten anywhere, like most 14 year olds.

without a natural talent in whatever art you are involving yourself in, there is no amount of practice that will get you to the top. those spots are taken by people who have natural talent and work hard at it.

the vast majority of us could never, for example, write an opera and have it produced at the met. in nyc. that requires an extraordinary level of talent, hard work, contacts and luck. the vast majority of us could never get a job singing opera no matter how hard we work at it.

a modest talent coupled with hard work can outdo a great talent who never works at all. i have known a few extremely talented singers who were unwilling to do what it takes to make it in the music business and so they are failures at it. those with a modest talent who were willing to do what it takes and work hard at it are now stars of the pop music world.

if you think about it, most people in the arts are failures no matter how hard they work and how much talent they have. there just are not enough spots for everyone who qualifies.

Nope I'm asking you to name anybody that you think is talented, and then we'll see if it is talent or hard work and practice.

I'm thinking of Eric Clapton, who without a doubt is a very talented guitar player. Cept he started playin at around 14 years old, so I guess it is not talent that makes him sooo good, just practice.

Don't get me wrong, I'll not deny that some people have a natural amplitude for certian things, this aint talent though.

Doesn't mean that Clapton didn't have a talent for music that others simply lack. There are quite a few guitar players out there but most of them are simply average. If anything, this only proves that talent is more important then work for if Eric Clapton waited until 14 to start playing and still managed to get his fantastic career I have no problem assuming that musical talent got him where he is today. Anyone can try to copy others but he truly has a gift for music that I don't believe you can have without some kind of talent on top of simple work.

Actually, I tend to ace all my math exams, and I'm a lazy bum.

Well check you. :p
Meh I suck at maths. Though, admittedly, I can get a B at an AS Level History essay that I did half-heartedly the night before. I was chuffed :p

I think you are taking it a little too literally. It is not about comparing someone with zero aptitude who works hard against someone who is talented who works very little. Like many many many sayings it does not work at the extremes.

However - even talented people cannot create good music without hard work, and even great dancers still practice every day. Are all the dancers in national ballet groups talented? Hell yes. Do they work hard? You bet your ass they do. Are there lots of equally talented dancers who did not work as hard who are not on national ballet groups? Yes. Are there dancers who are naturally more talented than some who are in the groups but did not work as hard so did not get in? Yes.

So you're basically saying people with talent who work hard have the best chances?
Who'd have thought?

Pshah, talent.

I don't work hard, I just scoot by on talent.

Ditto.

Ditto.

All truly great people do ;)

Yes, well, to cite a specific example I can relate to, there are plenty of musicians who don't work very hard and have no talent that end up becoming million selling. Why else would Paris Hilton release an album?Fans of her work say she has talent.
Oh, you mean her music, and not her movie. Nevermind.

I've heard the quote "Hard work beats talent if talent doesn't work hard" many times in my life, however, I've often found that the opposite is true, that someone who has a ton of talent at something can beat out someone who works really hard at it.

So, NSG, what do you think is more important to have in any given activity, talent, or the dedication to work hard?

It depends on the catagory. Anything that has a systematic, tried and true, method for succeeding will allow any untalented schlub to excel by simply working harder.

Many things have no such formula. e.g. Getting rich in the stock market. Some people have a talent for picking stocks, but they don't really understand how. So no matter how hard you work trying to duplicate their success, the best you can get through thorough research and micromanegement of your stocks is a decent retierment.

There are dozens of books written on how to pick up women, but the only thing that really works is being naturally charming.

Art... If you can't draw, you can't draw. No amount of practice will fix that.

paris hilton released an album because she is rich and famous. same with kevin federiline.

Well, obviously.

did paris' album sell well? i know that federline's has been an abyssmal failure.

After looking this up, apparently not in comparison to most pop music - although it did move 75,000 copies in the first week, apparently. There are hundreds - thousands - of talented artists who put a huge amount of effort into their work that won't shift that many copies in their lifetime, let alone in a week. If I ever release an album and it sells 75,000 units in a week, i'll consider that an amazing success.

but they do represent 2 other important aspects of success--luck and contacts. if paris hilton had had the bad luck to be born poor, she would be working the counter at dennys. if federline had never married brittney spears he would still be an unknown today.

luck and contacts are probably more important than hard work and talent. although no one ever succeeded without those 2 things.

Ah, but as anyone who listened to her overproduced debut would know, Hilton gets by through having others do the hard work for her.

Both true enough.

She isn't the only one, though, and one point still stands: Commercial success in modern music seems to be based more around fashion and image than musical talent or any real effort on the artist's part.

Fans of her work say she has talent.
Oh, you mean her music, and not her movie. Nevermind.

:P

I haven't seen it, but i've heard it wasn't that great.

After looking this up, apparently not in comparison to most pop music - although it did move 75,000 copies in the first week, apparently. There are hundreds - thousands - of talented artists who put a huge amount of effort into their work that won't shift that many copies in their lifetime, let alone in a week. If I ever release an album and it sells 75,000 units in a week, i'll consider that an amazing success.

The problem with that is, most of those bands just don't tour enough places to gain a large following... Thus the small sales numbers for their records. You have to put a lot of effort into it to make a living off of playing music.

That's why Husker Du played hundreds of shows in the course of a year. Otherwise, they would've only been a Minneapolis novelty, and they probably would've sold only a few thousand records (Zen Arcade sold over 420,000 copies in its original pressing run).

If I were in a band, I know for sure that I'd tour as many places as possible, if only to get my music heard and not necessarily sold. I just can't quite understand these bands who want their music to be heard by the masses, yet they stay in a few key areas and then die out after maybe five years.

It's almost depressing to think about it.

I'd say both are equal, but that's because I'm in the arts. Obviously, you have to have a natural flair for your art (acting and writing, in my case). However, you need to hard work, too. Talent is like the spark, and hard work is like the bellows. You need both to start a fire (and some fuel, too, I guess...that could be your connections). I see so many people in the theatre world who have special gifts, but who ultimately fail because they think they can just glide along on talent with no effort. And, conversely, there are some people who do all the work, and practise every day, but just don't have a natural and organic skill.
People always rave about how talented I am, but man, they should know how hard I work. Singing practise every day, working my monologues to pieces, audition after audition, working out to stay in shape, watching what I eat, reading plays, watching shows, character studies, etc. It's not like I magically woke up and was amazing. I had a little bit of amazingness, and I've been working my ass off for years to show people that.

The problem with that is, most of those bands just don't tour enough places to gain a large following... Thus the small sales numbers for their records. You have to put a lot of effort into it to make a living off of playing music.

That's why Husker Du played hundreds of shows in the course of a year. Otherwise, they would've only been a Minneapolis novelty, and they probably would've sold only a few thousand records (Zen Arcade sold over 420,000 copies in its original pressing run).

If I were in a band, I know for sure that I'd tour as many places as possible, if only to get my music heard and not necessarily sold. I just can't quite understand these bands who want their music to be heard by the masses, yet they stay in a few key areas and then die out after maybe five years.

It's almost depressing to think about it.

That's just silly. I got into every single band I listen to today before I saw them live. 99.5% of people are the same. We live in an age where it's easier than ever before for artists to put their music out into the public sphere. What you say might have been true several decades ago, but not anymore.

And again you are wrong. You, me, anybody can go out right now and learn to do anything we want to. Yes it may take time to get good at it, and more time to get really good at it, but practice really does make perfect.

No you can't.

You can go out and improve your ability at something but hard work alone will not make you the best. Can you run 100m in under 10 seconds? I'm guessing no. If you trained your ass off to the same level as an olympic athlete would you be able to run 100m in 10 seconds? I am guessing still no - you need the natural potential to be able to achieve something.

No matter how hard you work there is a ceiling to a persons ability/understanding of a subject. Without the natural aptitude you can only go so far in a certain field. However with natural aptitude you still need to work hard to achieve your full potential.

So you're basically saying people with talent who work hard have the best chances?
Who'd have thought?

I am also saying you can beat someone who is more talented than yourself if you work harder than them. And that the premise of the statement does not refer to people who have zero talent competing against someone who is naturally very gifted - it is more about comparing someone who is ok with someone who is naturally better but does not work as hard.

Taking the phrase to compare someone with zero aptitude with someone who is very gifted is seriously abusing a figure of speech. Like complaining that "A stitch in time saves nine" is not always correct as you do not always have to put in nine times more work than you would if you took preventative measures.

The spirit of the phrase is that if you work hard you will beat someone who is naturally better than you who does not work hard - however it assumes some ability to start with, and also that talented people still need to work hard to achieve their potential. It is not about comparing someone with zero music abiltity with Mozart and saying that no matter how hard the chump works he will never write music like Mozart.

the vast majority of us could never, for example, write an opera and have it produced at the met. in nyc. that requires an extraordinary level of talent, hard work, contacts and luck. the vast majority of us could never get a job singing opera no matter how hard we work at it.



I totaly disagree. Anyone of us if we practiced hard and long enough could write a topnotch opera, and it has more to do with blind luck and the people you know to get it shown anywhere. Any one of us can learn to be a 'talent' at whatever we choose to do.

Do you think that to be able to write to a proffesinal standard you don't have to learn something? How to formulate a story, how grammer works, spelling, do youy belive that for some people that this just comes naturaly?

Again, don't confuse talent with the abilty to pick new practices quickly.

Talent is what you get when you have worked long and hard enough at something.

Doesn't mean that Clapton didn't have a talent for music that others simply lack. There are quite a few guitar players out there but most of them are simply average. If anything, this only proves that talent is more important then work for if Eric Clapton waited until 14 to start playing and still managed to get his fantastic career I have no problem assuming that musical talent got him where he is today. Anyone can try to copy others but he truly has a gift for music that I don't believe you can have without some kind of talent on top of simple work.

He also had a brilliant mentor in John Mayall. It is pure practice, that is all.

No you can't.

You can go out and improve your ability at something but hard work alone will not make you the best. Can you run 100m in under 10 seconds? I'm guessing no. If you trained your ass off to the same level as an olympic athlete would you be able to run 100m in 10 seconds? I am guessing still no - you need the natural potential to be able to achieve something.

No matter how hard you work there is a ceiling to a persons ability/understanding of a subject. Without the natural aptitude you can only go so far in a certain field. However with natural aptitude you still need to work hard to achieve your full potential.

In physical matters like running yes, of course you can only do what your body can do. Are you really equateing physical prowess with talent though?

Put it this this way, find something that you have never done, go away and practice under the tutalge of a good teacher for 20 years, come back and tell me how such a thing as talent exsits, and it is not just practice.

I mean it, there is no such thing. You can do whatever it is you want to, you can be as good as your hero's if you practice enough, do you really thing not?

In physical matters like running yes, of course you can only do what your body can do. Are you really equateing physical prowess with talent though?

Put it this this way, find something that you have never done, go away and practice under the tutalge of a good teacher for 20 years, come back and tell me how such a thing as talent exsits, and it is not just practice.

I mean it, there is no such thing. You can do whatever it is you want to, you can be as good as your hero's if you practice enough, do you really thing not?

How is physical aptitude different from mental aptitude?

I see you understand that you can only do what your bodies potential allows you to do, which is why I find it bizarre that you do not also see that you can also only do what your mental potential allows you to.

Mentally peoples abilities vary as much as physical abilities, both in the range of feilds people are good at and the level of aptitude they allow for within those fields.

Sure I can go away and practice something solidly for 20 years - and I will get good at it, but if I lack the aptitude in it I can only get so far. And if someone else alongside me does the same but simply has more aptitude for what we are studying then assuming they work as hard they will reach higher and more quickly that I would ever be able to do.

Aptitude = Potential.
Work = How much of that potential you reach.

How is physical aptitude different from mental aptitude?

I see you understand that you can only do what your bodies potential allows you to do, which is why I find it bizarre that you do not also see that you can also only do what your mental potential allows you to.

Mentally peoples abilities vary as much as physical abilities, both in the range of feilds people are good at and the level of aptitude they allow for within those fields.

Sure I can go away and practice something solidly for 20 years - and I will get good at it, but if I lack the aptitude in it I can only get so far. And if someone else alongside me does the same but simply has more aptitude for what we are studying then assuming they work as hard they will reach higher and more quickly that I would ever be able to do.

Aptitude = Potential.
Work = How much of that potential you reach.


Apptitude smaptitude, that is complete rubbish. All that means is your learning of it is harder, normaly when we are in that sort of a situation we take the asy route and give up on it.

If however we don't, we instead persiver, what happens is 20 years down the line, people start saying how talented we are.

It is this, ohhh I have no talent for that, attutude that is our undoing. I reapeat you, I, we can do whatever it is we want to do, we can get very, very good at it too, merely by practice.

Do yourself a fovour, and go and talk to some of these talented people, ask them how much practice they have had to put in to get as good as they are. You think people like David Beckham is just naturaly good a kicking a swerve ball? No by his own admission he practiced at it. Talent I guess can be said to be a drive to succed other than that, there is no such thing.

Apptitude smaptitude, that is complete rubbish. All that means is your learning of it is harder, normaly when we are in that sort of a situation we take the asy route and give up on it.
Not only is the learning harder but there is a lower ceiling on where you can reach. Ditto for physical activity.


If however we don't, we instead persiver, what happens is 20 years down the line, people start saying how talented we are.

It is this, ohhh I have no talent for that, attutude that is our undoing. I reapeat you, I, we can do whatever it is we want to do, we can get very, very good at it too, merely by practice.
While optimism is a good thing it also has to be somewhat realistic. The people who practice for 20 years - yes they owe a lot of their ability to practice but they owe their ability to reach that level to talent/aptitide.


Do yourself a fovour, and go and talk to some of these talented people, ask them how much practice they have had to put in to get as good as they are. You think people like David Beckham is just naturaly good a kicking a swerve ball? No by his own admission he practiced at it. Talent I guess can be said to be a drive to succed other than that, there is no such thing.
Wait. A second ago you were saying physical prowess was different and now you are lumping it in again.

Can I assume if you practice enough anyone can run 100m in 10 seconds? Obviously not. Do the people who run 100m in 10 seconds practice a lot? Yes. Why can they run 100m in 10 seconds with a lot of practice but others who practice equally can only make it in 12 Seconds? Because their aptitude means their potential is higher - they not only improve faster but they reach higher in the end too.

I think where you are getting confused here is that you see David Beckham, you realise he is good and needs to practice, but you are failing to realise that he needs practice because he is also competing against other people who also have a lot of talent/aptitude.

Can I ask - how old are you?

Wait. A second ago you were saying physical prowess was different and now you are lumping it in again.

No man you got it wrong. The example you gave was one of physical limitations. No matter how hard I try I can never run faster than my body will let me. David Beckham and his free kicks has nothing to do with the physical limitatins of his body, any able bodied person can take a free kick. His ability to swerve it etc.. is purley down to the practice he has had at it.

I think where you are getting confused here is that you see David Beckham, you realise he is good and needs to practice, but you are failing to realise that he needs practice because he is also competing against other people who also have a lot of talent/aptitude.


Naaa I think perhaps it is you that has misuderstood me.


Can I ask - how old are you?

Sure you can. :p

No man you got it wrong. The example you gave was one of physical limitations. No matter how hard I try I can never run faster than my body will let me. David Beckham and his free kicks has nothing to do with the physical limitatins of his body, any able bodied person can take a free kick. His ability to swerve it etc.. is purley down to the practice he has had at it.
His ability to kick it with that level of accuracy however is down to what his body and mind allows him to.

An able person can run 100m, they often cannot however run it in 10 seconds.

An able person can kick a ball, they often cannot kick it with the same level of accuracy as a talented footballer.

An able person can learn the cello, they cannot however reach the same standard as a talented musician is able to reach.

You are seriously confusing talented people who practice to reach the potential that their talent/aptitude allows with the very very very mistaken idea that anyone who practices will be just as good.

Aptitude is not just about how fast you improve at something, but also about how far you can reach.

Think of it this way - Chances are all professional footballers put in a similar level of work - why are some still better than others? All professional classical musicians put in a similar amount of work - why are some still that much better than others?


Naaa I think perhaps it is you that has misuderstood me.

Given the level of understanding you are showing I doubt it.


Sure you can. :p

Sigh... Somehow I expected as much...

How old are you?

*wonders if the response will be "I said you could ask but that does not mean I will answer"*

Both no amount of hard work will over come a complete lack of talent but I think hard work has the greater effect
Actually, I'm stunningly lacking in natural talent when it comes to any task related to motor-skills, (in fact I have motor-dyspraxia - poor muscle tone, response and building, poor coordination, poor comprehension of my own and other peoples' body movement). I cannot quite decide if I have two left feet, or two right feet, partially because as a result of dyslexia I have difficulty discerning left from right. I also lack any musical apptitude/understanding, I cant tell melody from bass, I have trouble detecting 'the beat' of a musical piece - I dont have either a natural feel or a technical understanding of the ins, outs and workings of music.

In terms of dancing, to suggest that I was characterised by a complete lack of talent was probably an overly optimistic assessment.

When I first attended dance class I was the most inept student in my class and this continued for several 'terms' despite novice dancers joining the class months after I had begun attending.

With much hard work, as well as ending up the best dancer in that class, surpassing my cohorts and those who began before me, I was (after being seen at a student show) 'head-hunted' to dance professionally. I was within a short time of that rated as one of the top three professional dancers (within my genre) in the city by my peers, by teachers within the genre, and amongst employers (while there was wide-spread concensus as to which 3 dancers constituted the top 3 in the city, actual preference among the 3 of us was fairly evenly distributed).

The time-span from 1st lesson (and complete ineptness) to my first professional performace was less than two years and I had earned my top 3 rating within 3 years of having attended my first lesson.

So I know as a matter of fact that it is possible for someone to overcome a complete lack of talent with hard work.

I was (after being seen at a student show) 'head-hunted' to dance professionally. I was within a short time of that rated as one of the top three professional dancers (within my genre) in the city by my peers, by teachers within the genre, and amongst employers (while there was wide-spread concensus as to which 3 dancers constituted the top 3 in the city, actual preference among the 3 of us was fairly evenly distributed).

I have two questions:
Q1. Are you better than a lot of dancers who have danced for the same length of time or longer?
Q2. Do the dancers from Q1 practice very hard or not really that much?

See - I suspect you had a previously undiscovered ability, which you discovered and then nurtured. I am going to guess that there are a lot of people out there who practice very very hard but fail to make the top three in their city in only three years - why do they fail to reach so high dispite a lot of work when you managed to make it?

A teacher I had when I was 11 used to say that study is what you multiply your intelligence to in order to get result.

So, assuming both intelligence and study are ranged 0 to 10, you can get a result of (p.es.) 8 by having an intelligence of 8 and studying 1 or by an intelligence of 1 and studying 8, or by intelligence 2 and study 4 or whatever.

Substitute talent for inteligence and hard work for study and it makes a lot of sense.

Talent is how fast a car can go. Hard work is how much you want to press on the accelerator.

His ability to kick it with that level of accuracy however is down to what his body and mind allows him to.

Well that almost, but you're on the wrong track again, I'll take your points below one at a time and see if we can't make some headway.



An able person can run 100m, they often cannot however run it in 10 seconds.

True but this is because of the limits of the body.



An able person can kick a ball, they often cannot kick it with the same level of accuracy as a talented footballer.

False because it can be learned. Acuracy is about where to strike the ball, with how much speed, in what position the foot should be in, foot to eye co-ordination, and unlike running physical limits of the body have very little to do with it. In short you can learn and practice.



An able person can learn the cello, they cannot however reach the same standard as a talented musician is able to reach.

False again, anybody can learn to play the chello, the differance is only one of practice.


You are seriously confusing talented people who practice to reach the potential that their talent/aptitude allows with the very very very mistaken idea that anyone who practices will be just as good.

No, you and I are disagreeing. You belive one way, I belive the other.


Aptitude is not just about how fast you improve at something, but also about how far you can reach.

Well again we are in disagreement, I would have said aptitude is ability in learning.


Think of it this way - Chances are all professional footballers put in a similar level of work - why are some still better than others? All professional classical musicians put in a similar amount of work - why are some still that much better than others?

Lots of reasons, some practice harder, some started earlier, some are just plain better.




Sigh... Somehow I expected as much...

How old are you?

*wonders if the response will be "I said you could ask but that does not mean I will answer"*

Geez, lighten up man, a little humour ya know. The answer would 38.

True but this is because of the limits of the body.

The body can be improved with work. But you are still limited in how much you can improve it by your natural abilities. Likewise your mind.

False because it can be learned. Acuracy is about where to strike the ball, with how much speed, in what position the foot should be in, foot to eye co-ordination, and unlike running physical limits of the body have very little to do with it. In short you can learn and practice.
Your accuracy can be improved with work, but you are still limited by how much you can improve it by your natural abilities.

False again, anybody can learn to play the chello, the differance is only one of practice.

You can learn to play the cello very well with work, but you are limited in how far you can improve by your natural abilities.


Lots of reasons, some practice harder, some started earlier, some are just plain better.
Given the motivation of staying at the top I think it is fair to say that they all practice pretty damn hard, given that many of them also all start at a young age and some are still better I think 'started earlier' is also ruled out - also given that some of the better peple at these things did not start earlier. Starting the youngest and working the hardest does in no way guarentee you will be the best. Which brings us to your final point - "Some are just plain better" - i.e some just have more aptitude/talent - they have a higher potential that their peers cannot reach dispite working just as hard.


Geez, lighten up man, a little humour ya know. The answer would 38.
Hmmm... weird.

I have two questions:
1. Are you better than a lot of dancers who have danced for the same length of time or longer?
Yes
2. Do the dancers from Q2 practice very hard or not really that much?
Yes, of course, but not as much as I did.

See - I suspect you had a previously undiscovered ability, which you discovered and then nurtured.
Well you are quite simply wrong. Remember it's not just that I didnt appear to have the talent in the skills involved, I actually am characterised by conditions that render me naturally 'sub-normal' in every single skill involved.

I am going to guess that there are a lot of people out there who practice very very hard but fail to make the top three in their city in only three years
Sure other dancers did work hard, but none of them came near working as hard as I did.

- why do they fail to reach so high dispite a lot of work when you managed to make it?
Because they dont work as hard as I did.

The notion that I had some 'hidden talent' is contrary to the facts. We are talking about dancing - it's no mystery what skills are involved. If I merely had the opinion that I lacked talent, there might be some chance you were correct. But this is not about my subjective judgement. Rather, I have a cluster of conditions whose symptomology renders me deficient, that is sub-normal, in the exact skills at issue.

Yes
Yes, of course, but not as much as I did.

Sure other dancers did work hard, but none of them came near working as hard as I did.

Because they dont work as hard as I did.


How do you know?


A friend of mine is a professional ballet dancer, She has been practicing for maybe 6-8 hours a day (most days) for the last 20 or so years. She is very good, however there are others out there who are still better - in terms of professional ballet dancers she ranks about average. She has a lot of aptitude, however some of her peers have just that bit more.

Another friend of mine is a professional cello player. She managed to come top of her class at the Royal Academy of Music (a pretty good music academy..) doing at the most 2 hours a day of practice while I know some of her peers did twice if not three times as much practice, and yet she beat them all by quite a long way. Why did she do so much better with so much less work if hard work is the only factor?

How do you know?
How do I know what?

A friend of mine is a professional ballet dancer, She has been practicing for maybe 6-8 hours a day (most days) for the last 20 or so years. She is very good, however there are others out there who are still better - in terms of professional ballet dancers she ranks about average. She has a lot of aptitude, however some of her peers have just that bit more.
None of which negates the point at issue. If your friend were to be compared with someone who was much more 'naturally talented' than her but who had practised only 2 hours every second day over the same 20 years, it's highly unlikely your friend wouldnt be the better dancer.

Another friend of mine is a professional cello player. She managed to come top of her class at the Royal Academy of Music (a pretty good music academy..) doing at the most 2 hours a day of practice while I know some of her peers did twice if not three times as much practice, and yet she beat them all by quite a long way. Why did she do so much better with so much less work if hard work is the only factor?
I've not said or even implyed that work is the only factor.

There are 2 variables, 'natural talent' and 'hard work'. I'm not telling you that either is irrelevent, what I am telling you is that 'natural talent' is not necessarily determinitive. It is possible for one person to have much more talent and still end up out-done by someone who works a lot harder. In my case, I worked a lot harder than people more 'naturally talented' than is the norm, and even though I am actually 'sub-normal' in the skills at issue (as opposed to 'within the range of normal' or 'talented') the extent to which I worked harder, not only brought me within the range of normal performance, it propelled me ahead of much more talented individuals.

The body can be improved with work. But you are still limited in how much you can improve it by your natural abilities. Likewise your mind.

Your accuracy can be improved with work, but you are still limited by how much you can improve it by your natural abilities.

You can learn to play the cello very well with work, but you are limited in how far you can improve by your natural abilities.


Given the motivation of staying at the top I think it is fair to say that they all practice pretty damn hard, given that many of them also all start at a young age and some are still better I think 'started earlier' is also ruled out - also given that some of the better peple at these things did not start earlier. Starting the youngest and working the hardest does in no way guarentee you will be the best. Which brings us to your final point - "Some are just plain better" - i.e some just have more aptitude/talent - they have a higher potential that their peers cannot reach dispite working just as hard.


Hmmm... weird.


Nope again I completely disagree.

When I say talent I mean any form of inate non physical aptitude to excel at a given skill over and above others without putting in too much practice.

i still contend that such a thing does not exist, and that we can all be considered talented, via a process of hard work and practice.

Did you not read the ballet dancers post?

Weird, why? Ohhh Heh you thought I was exipiting all the triaits of a stary eyed young optimists, and so put my in the teenage bracket?

Muahwhahah silly you!

Can you show me how such a thing as talent exists?

Nope again I completely disagree.

When I say talent I mean any form of inate non physical aptitude to excel at a given skill over and above others without putting in too much practice.
A very odd definition of talent. Particulary in ruling out the physical aspect. How is the physical different from the mental? You have already agreed that we are constrained by the limits of what out bodies are capeable - which is why I find it bizarre that you do not believe we are constrained by what our minds are capeable of.

i still contend that such a thing does not exist, and that we can all be considered talented, via a process of hard work and practice.
So esentially what you are saying is that each and every person on the entire planet has the same mental potential. (barring people with mental disabilities i assume)

Do you not think that such a position is absurd?

Did you not read the ballet dancers post?

That was my post - the other guy did not say he was a ballet dancer. The ballet dancer one was about a girl I know who spends many hours a day practicing, and has done for 20 years, but she is about average for a professional ballet dancer, when there are others who have practiced less and for less time who are better than her.

I also think he is reading too much into his 'inate' disability. For example I know a few dyslexics who are actually very good at maths they just needed ways that they could do the work and read the questions.

I also like how you discard physical ability (presumeably as it can be very accurately measured even at high levels) but accept dancing as an example - a sport that produces some of the fittest, strongest and most athletic people on the whole planet.

Weird, why? Ohhh Heh you thought I was exipiting all the triaits of a stary eyed young optimists, and so put my in the teenage bracket?

Muahwhahah silly you!
Honestly I think it is very strange that someone can reach that age and not have seen people reach the point where they can go no further. I am finding it difficult to imagine the experiences you could have had, or missed, in that time that you have not seem that some people just have more potential than others in every field - you see it for physical talent but you are somehow blind to it in mental ability. Either you have never seen people pushed to their limit, you have never met people who are just simply outstanding at what they do or you are a paragon who is good at everything but sport, who just does not understand that others just cannot reach as high in things requiring mental aptitude. I hope it is the last, as it is kind of sad if you have never seen people push to the point where they can go no further or have never seen someone who is truely amazing at something - more amazing than most people could possible by even with ten lifetimes of practice.

Can you show me how such a thing as talent exists?
Given that your level of reasoning allows you to accept there are limits of the body but not of the mind I am not sure what is really going on upstairs - showing you talent in such a context is a bit difficult.

My own experiences:
Myself - I am very good at physics. In my class at school up to the age of 18 when the lecturer introduced a new topic by the time he had gotten halfway through the lesson I had already worked out the entire topic - including what we covered in the next two or three weeks lessons. With little study I managed to get almost 100% in the final exams while many others both in my class and in the nation as a whole worked their guts out to get Bs and Cs.

My friends - when I was 16 I sat next to a kid in regristration at school - he spoke 4 languages fluently and aced his english exams wiht straight As all the way. But he sucked at math. I mean he was adding up 4apples and 3 pears then you give him 2 apples and take away one pear - how many apples do you have left? And getting it wrong. But he worked at it - he practiced math for a couple of hours every single day for 4 years - and still he could barely add up or solve simple problems. He had no ability in math at all.

My Dad - He finished formal education at 14, after stopping turning up to school at about 12. I can guarentee you he has not read a book (of any sort) in 20 years or more. But he is amazing at geometric problems - a friend of my parents did math at Cambridge and they got talking - he did not believe my dad was good at that stuff and set him a geometry problem from his degree course, which pops got correct straight away, they regulary set each other geometry problems these days and pops normally does better than a guy who studied very very hard at math for a good 15 years or more. So a guy with no education, who has never studied math beyond the age of 12-13 can solve a geometry problem that students on a cambridge math course struggle with. But at the same time - he cannot solve simple simultaneous equations. He is just very talented at geometry.

My friend the Cellist - rarely practiced more than two hours a day compared to her peers who work their asses of for 6 or more hours every single day. And she was much much better than all of them. She was so good that when she needed cash she just entered in a music competition going on around london, spent a few hours learnign the piece and went off with the expectation of winning and did - beating friends of hers who had spent days or weeks practicing that one piece.

Or less anecdotal examples:
Stradivarius - If hard work is all it takes then why in 300 years have none of the stringed instrument makers who have spent their entire lives perfecting their craft managed to make a Violin as good as or better than Stradivarius?

Or a more every day example:
Try joining the Air Force as a pilot - they will amke you take a series of aptitude tests aimed at seeing how your mind works and how it filters information. They do this because they found that people who did not have sufficient skills just were not able to fly planes at high performance even after years and years of intensive training.

Or what about the tens of thousands of students across the country who work their asses off and struggle to get a C or even a D or E?

And then what about those who manage to walk through their schooling and through their degree and constantly get straight As without ever really knuckling down and doing it.

I also think he is reading too much into his 'inate' disability. For example I know a few dyslexics who are actually very good at maths they just needed ways that they could do the work and read the questions.
I think you dont so much 'think' that, but rather are 'grasping' at it the way a drowning person might grasp at a straw.
The fact that dyslexic people can be good at maths despite having sub-normal skills that can negatively impact maths ability, if they work in order to over-come the lack actually counter-indicates your position.

As to your absurd notion that I am reading too much into conditions I am characterised by, that is about as stupid as telling a deaf person that they are reading too much into their condition in regards to it preventing them from hearing. By definition motor-dyspraxia is a condition where-by a person is not 'naturally talented' in motor-skills - that is to say they are not physically adept. Dancing requires one be physically adept - people who are naturally talented at dancing are physically adept.

If you are honest with yourself you will realise that based on less information about the matter than I have, and without any basis other than "if that's true I have to reconsider my opinion and I dont want to do that" you are nay-saying what I have told you.
I have a body of personal experiance (regarding the impact and effect of my condition on my functioning) in excess of 30 years, medical diagnosis including a description of the symptomology, and a much better idea of what skills are needed for the dance genre at issue than anyone who hasnt trained in it, you have an unwillingness to reconsider an established opinion....I think it's pretty clear who is more likely to know what they are talking about in regards to this particular issue.
I wont dwell too much on the arrogance of you assuming that you know more about me and the effect of the conditions I have lived with for over 30 years, than I do.

So, NSG, what do you think is more important to have in any given activity, talent, or the dedication to work hard?
Ahh, there's the subtle difference. Dedication. Motivation. You can work your entire body off on something and have all the talent in the world, but if you're not engaged in what you're doing, you will never reach the full potential of what you can achieve.

So much of what I do at the minute is mindless hard work. Rote-learning facts by the bookload simply to pass exams with good grades. And I have a degree of talent for what I'm doing, as my raw marks will tell you. But I will always wind up inferior in the eyes of those who are teaching the subject to those who feel a genuine interest for what they're reading, no matter what talents they have or what amount of effort they put into their studies.

A very odd definition of talent. Particulary in ruling out the physical aspect. How is the physical different from the mental? You have already agreed that we are constrained by the limits of what out bodies are capeable - which is why I find it bizarre that you do not believe we are constrained by what our minds are capeable of.

So esentially what you are saying is that each and every person on the entire planet has the same mental potential. (barring people with mental disabilities i assume)

Do you not think that such a position is absurd?

Heh man well I can see that you completely just don't get my point.

Let me try it another way then.

When we talk about singing, do you imagine that being able to sing well is because of physical properties or mental properties?

Don't get me wrong, I'll not deny that some people have a natural amplitude for certian things, this aint talent though.


Lots of reasons, some practice harder, some started earlier, some are just plain better.

I respect your right to set your own definitions, but I've checked several dictionaries, and most of them actually do describe talent as a "natural aptitude", either verbatim or via some comparable description.

I hate to reduce these discussions to semantics, but that seems to arena in which agreement is not achieved here.

Can we agree that by common dictionary definition and collective common usage, talent as its been described here does exist?

Talent minus hard work means nothing. It can, however, given the right amount of exertion give you a wonderful edge. :)

Heh man well I can see that you completely just don't get my point.

Let me try it another way then.

When we talk about singing, do you imagine that being able to sing well is because of physical properties or mental properties?
You are still dodging wether or not people have different mental potential.
You are also dodging why physical and mental potential are somehow different, how someone can be limited by what their body is capeable of but (according to you ) not what their mind is capeable of.
And you have also just dodged a heap of examples of people who have demonstrated talent - both anecdotal and examples you can easily verify yourself.

Are you going to keep dodging?

Singing is both - you must have the mental ability to be able to understand the music but you cannot be a great singer if you do not have the right vocal chords. It is a very real constraint imposed on you by the physical world - and no matter how hard you try you will not achieve the richness of sound if you do not have vocal chords that are capeable of it. With rubbish vocal chords you will probably start out bad, with practice you will get better but you will never be a really good singer.

I am surprised that you seem to think that just because if you scoop two peoples brains out they look the same that the two must work as well as each other.

I respect your right to set your own definitions, but I've checked several dictionaries, and most of them actually do describe talent as a "natural aptitude", either verbatim or via some comparable description.

I hate to reduce these discussions to semantics, but that seems to arena in which agreement is not achieved here.

Can we agree that by common dictionary definition and collective common usage, talent as its been described here does exist?

What I'm trying to distinguish between is physical advantages, and skills that can be learnt.

I say that any body that owes an 'aplitude' to a pysical advantage cannot be said to be 'talented'. Is it talent that a 6'6 muscle bound bloke can lift 100kg s more than the skinny 5'4 man? No it is physical advantage.

Talent then must only be applicable to skills that can be learnt, and in that I argue that we can all do this, nobody can be said to have a natural applutide for maths for example.

Think of this, If I have a aplitude for maths, can it be said that i still have if I have never been taught it? If I had never even been taught basic maths, or I never picked it up during my childhood, would this 'talent' shine through when I eventualy started to learn?

I say no, all talents are learnt behaviour, and I belive that we can all achive a similar level given the right teachers, and enough practice.

This is why I ask, do talents exist?

You are still dodging wether or not people have different mental potential.
You are also dodging why physical and mental potential are somehow different, how someone can be limited by what their body is capeable of but (according to you ) not what their mind is capeable of.
And you have also just dodged a heap of examples of people who have demonstrated talent - both anecdotal and examples you can easily verify yourself.

Are you going to keep dodging?

Singing is both - you must have the mental ability to be able to understand the music but you cannot be a great singer if you do not have the right vocal chords. It is a very real constraint imposed on you by the physical world - and no matter how hard you try you will not achieve the richness of sound if you do not have vocal chords that are capeable of it. With rubbish vocal chords you will probably start out bad, with practice you will get better but you will never be a really good singer.

I am surprised that you seem to think that just because if you scoop two peoples brains out they look the same that the two must work as well as each other.


Hey I think we are getting somewhere, please see my answer above this.

For the record, I have not actualy been dogeing anything, merely waiting for you to understand my point.

How do you get what I belive about brains?

Hard work seems to win out over talent in most things.

Hey I think we are getting somewhere, please see my answer above this.

For the record, I have not actualy been dogeing anything, merely waiting for you to understand my point.

How do you get what I belive about brains?
You have not responded to a single example of talent - anecdotal or verifiable by yourself - which looks a lot like a dodge. And nor have you responded to wether people have identical mental potential - another dodge. And you have not commented on why you think we are limited by what our bodies are capeable of but not what our minds are capeable of - another dodge.

As to your answer above and your my guess about what you believe on brains - you seem to believe that any skill or ability can be learnt. Which would indicate that you think that all brains have about the same potential.

I say that any body that owes an 'aplitude' to a pysical advantage cannot be said to be 'talented'. Is it talent that a 6'6 muscle bound bloke can lift 100kg s more than the skinny 5'4 man? No it is physical advantage.

Talent then must only be applicable to skills that can be learnt, and in that I argue that we can all do this, nobody can be said to have a natural applutide for maths for example.

I say no, all talents are learnt behaviour, and I belive that we can all achive a similar level given the right teachers, and enough practice.
Now - if you believe that we can all achieve a similar level in an academic field then it stands to reason that you believe that we all have brains of the same potential.

In reality some people have brains analagous to the 6'6" athletic bloke you mention, and some people ahve brains analagous to the skinnly little guy you mention. People with both types can practice and improve their ability, but the one with the brain more suited to the subject at hand will improve faster and reach higher.

One hour of effort by the talented equates to twenty years effort by the mediocre. Talent always wins, unless talent does no work.

You have not responded to a single example of talent - anecdotal or verifiable by yourself - which looks a lot like a dodge. And nor have you responded to wether people have identical mental potential - another dodge. And you have not commented on why you think we are limited by what our bodies are capeable of but not what our minds are capeable of - another dodge.

*sigh* Okay give me these examples



As to your answer above and your my guess about what you believe on brains - you seem to believe that any skill or ability can be learnt. Which would indicate that you think that all brains have about the same potential.

If not all people think alike, then not all brains are alike, so not all brains will be able to perform alike. However we can all, given enough time, and the right teachers achive a similar understanding and level in any endevour.


Now - if you believe that we can all achieve a similar level in an academic field then it stands to reason that you believe that we all have brains of the same potential.

How does it stand to reason? Please explain that one for me.



In reality some people have brains analagous to the 6'6" athletic bloke you mention, and some people ahve brains analagous to the skinnly little guy you mention. People with both types can practice and improve their ability, but the one with the brain more suited to the subject at hand will improve faster and reach higher.

My argument is that these people who seem to have an inate ability have not. What they have though has either been taught, or they have picked up via a process of lifes experiance.

If you are brought up in the house of drunkards, it is more likely that you will be a drunkard. Is this because you have 'aplitude' to drink, or because you have learnt this behaviour from a young age?

Talent effects how efficient your work shall be ;]

*sigh* Okay give me these examples
You have responded to the post already yourself. But for your benefit here they are again:

My own experiences:
Myself - I am very good at physics. In my class at school up to the age of 18 when the lecturer introduced a new topic by the time he had gotten halfway through the lesson I had already worked out the entire topic - including what we covered in the next two or three weeks lessons. With little study I managed to get almost 100% in the final exams while many others both in my class and in the nation as a whole worked their guts out to get Bs and Cs.

My friends - when I was 16 I sat next to a kid in regristration at school - he spoke 4 languages fluently and aced his english exams wiht straight As all the way. But he sucked at math. I mean he was adding up 4apples and 3 pears then you give him 2 apples and take away one pear - how many apples do you have left? And getting it wrong. But he worked at it - he practiced math for a couple of hours every single day for 4 years - and still he could barely add up or solve simple problems. He had no ability in math at all.

My Dad - He finished formal education at 14, after stopping turning up to school at about 12. I can guarentee you he has not read a book (of any sort) in 20 years or more. But he is amazing at geometric problems - a friend of my parents did math at Cambridge and they got talking - he did not believe my dad was good at that stuff and set him a geometry problem from his degree course, which pops got correct straight away, they regulary set each other geometry problems these days and pops normally does better than a guy who studied very very hard at math for a good 15 years or more. So a guy with no education, who has never studied math beyond the age of 12-13 can solve a geometry problem that students on a cambridge math course struggle with. But at the same time - he cannot solve simple simultaneous equations. He is just very talented at geometry.

My friend the Cellist - rarely practiced more than two hours a day compared to her peers who work their asses of for 6 or more hours every single day. And she was much much better than all of them. She was so good that when she needed cash she just entered in a music competition going on around london, spent a few hours learnign the piece and went off with the expectation of winning and did - beating friends of hers who had spent days or weeks practicing that one piece.

Or less anecdotal examples:
Stradivarius - If hard work is all it takes then why in 300 years have none of the stringed instrument makers who have spent their entire lives perfecting their craft managed to make a Violin as good as or better than Stradivarius?

Or a more every day example:
Try joining the Air Force as a pilot - they will amke you take a series of aptitude tests aimed at seeing how your mind works and how it filters information. They do this because they found that people who did not have sufficient skills just were not able to fly planes at high performance even after years and years of intensive training.

Or what about the tens of thousands of students across the country who work their asses off and struggle to get a C or even a D or E?

And then what about those who manage to walk through their schooling and through their degree and constantly get straight As without ever really knuckling down and doing it.



If not all people think alike, then not all brains are alike, so not all brains will be able to perform alike. However we can all, given enough time, and the right teachers achive a similar understanding and level in any endevour.
Not all bodies are alike, hence not all bodies are able to perform alike. However we can all, given enough time, and the right coaching, achieve a similar performance in any sport.

True or False?

How is the above statement any less valid than your claims of the minds ability?


My argument is that these people who seem to have an inate ability have not. What they have though has either been taught, or they have picked up via a process of lifes experiance.

If you are brought up in the house of drunkards, it is more likely that you will be a drunkard. Is this because you have 'aplitude' to drink, or because you have learnt this behaviour from a young age?
What the hell does drinking have to do with natural aptitude other than trying to sidestep the issue you have been presented with several times?

What I'm trying to distinguish between is physical advantages, and skills that can be learnt.

In the part where I quoted you, you claimed that natural aptitude wasn't the same as talent, and I'm simply pointing out that a wide range of dictionaries (as well as common usage) disagree with you.

As to this separate issue, given the correlation between acuity of motor responses (both consciously voluntary and reflexively autonomic) and training, there may be less of a distinction then you hope for.


I say that any body that owes an 'aplitude' to a pysical advantage cannot be said to be 'talented'. Is it talent that a 6'6 muscle bound bloke can lift 100kg s more than the skinny 5'4 man? No it is physical advantage.

Talent then must only be applicable to skills that can be learnt, and in that I argue that we can all do this, nobody can be said to have a natural applutide for maths for example.

Think of this, If I have a aplitude for maths, can it be said that i still have if I have never been taught it? If I had never even been taught basic maths, or I never picked it up during my childhood, would this 'talent' shine through when I eventualy started to learn?

I say no, all talents are learnt behaviour, and I belive that we can all achive a similar level given the right teachers, and enough practice.

This is why I ask, do talents exist?

The point several people have already made to you in this thread: some people receive training and "pick it up" more easily and with greater terminal potential.

You yourself have admitted that some people pick things up more easily then others. According to the dictionary, this innate aptitude is described as "talent".

If you choose to reject the dictionary definition, please state so implicitly.

If not all people think alike, then not all brains are alike, so not all brains will be able to perform alike. However we can all, given enough time, and the right teachers achive a similar understanding and level in any endevour.


So, if you admit that not all brains (and by correlary, not all people) will perform alike, you understand some will perform in the practice and development of a particular capacity more efficiently than others.

We can call this an "aptitude" (which you've admitted exists) or "natural endowment".

Its then a simple step to point out that one of the common definitions of the word "talent" is: A mental or physical aptitude, or superior natural endowment or ability.

Peepelonia, mathematics is a perfect example. I'm presently studying differential equations alongside several people. We've all had similar preparation (I've studied with many of them before), but some have to spend disproportionately more time and effort, and often still yield lesser results.

This factor, this nebulous element that sometimes allows one student to outperform another student who works harder and longer, is an aptitude.

And despite your statment of "that ain't talent", it actually is.

Talent. Hard work is a commodity available to anybody, whereas talent isn't.

Talent. Hard work is a commodity available to anybody, whereas talent isn't.

Something to that, I think.

A teacher of mine used to say "You will be chosen by criteria of talent. You will be rewarded by criteria of hard work."

Something to that, I think.

A teacher of mine used to say "You will be chosen by criteria of talent. You will be rewarded by criteria of hard work."

Precisely.

How many sportsmen work terribly hard every time they play a match? The majority, however, only those with an exceptional talent are noticable.