Current Events > Does natural talent exist?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Absolutely. Most people will never be a top tier pro athlete, for example, due to genetics.

AzNDarkSamurai posted...

Absolutely. Most people will never be a top tier pro athlete, for example, due to genetics.

And others will never be a top-tier pro athlete because despite having bags of talent, they wont put in the work.

Yes.

So to be clear, if you take ten people, make the details of their life and upbringing exactly the same, down to the level of care, meals, etc. everything

a couple of those people will still be inclined to be better at thing X than the rest of the group?

obv this is a silly and completely unrealistic hypothetical. just tryin to zero in on what ppl think

I believe it does, but quantifying "natural" and "talent" can be extremely murky.

Without a shadow of a doubt.

Yep

Dungeater posted...

So to be clear, if you take ten people, make the details of their life and upbringing exactly the same, down to the level of care, meals, etc. everything

a couple of those people will still be inclined to be better at thing X than the rest of the group?

obv this is a silly and completely unrealistic hypothetical. just tryin to zero in on what ppl think

I would say yes just based on the fact Ive known multiple sets of identical twins that grow up as similar as you possibly can in the same environment and still end up quite different people good at different things and interested/passionate about different things.

Dungeater posted...

a couple of those people will still be inclined to be better at thing X than the rest of the group?

Yes. Talent is basically just the word we use to describe the way a person's genetics give them a distinct advantage with certain skills.

Dungeater posted...

So to be clear, if you take ten people, make the details of their life and upbringing exactly the same, down to the level of care, meals, etc. everything

a couple of those people will still be inclined to be better at thing X than the rest of the group?

obv this is a silly and completely unrealistic hypothetical. just tryin to zero in on what ppl think

Yes, exactly. Hell, this is observed in higher disciplines, like medicine. In America, if you fail the final tests to become a doctor three times, you just don't get another chance.

And heck, talent doesn't have to be specific to some neural configuration. Sometimes talent is just having muscle for no goddamn reason.

SaikyoStyle posted...

And others will never be a top-tier pro athlete because despite having bags of talent, they wont put in the work.

Believe it or not, having ''natural talent'' is the biggest curse for success. Naturally talented people get so used at being good they don't develop the work ethic, the thick skin to sustain real hardships and adapt to ever changing challenges. They might be good at first, beating everyone effortlessly but comes a point where natural talent is no longer enough when you are facing people that have prepared to fight back against someone like you. The best school of life is being bad at something right from the start; it forces you to decipher a challenge, to analyse all its aspects, to pin point the information that is relevant to overcome it, the requirements you lack and have to develop to not being caught off-guard again and turn that challenge into an advantage to use against others.

I will strongly urge people to read the excellent book from Angela Duckworth called ''Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance''. Truly, if you had one book to read this year, you should read that one.

Guide posted...

Yes, exactly. Hell, this is observed in higher disciplines, like medicine. In America, if you fail the final tests to become a doctor three times, you just don't get another chance.

And heck, talent doesn't have to be specific to some neural configuration. Sometimes talent is just having muscle for no goddamn reason.

That's a bad example because having a high IQ is not enough to become a doctor. You can have a high IQ and still be crushed by people who have better studying techniques, are more devoted, are more resilient than you. The last one is especially important because resilience and imagination (a word that encompasses creativity, adaptability, malleability) are the key factors that distinguishes an average candidate vs an extraordinary one.

EightySixChuChu posted...

That's a bad example because having a high IQ is not enough to become a doctor. You can have a high IQ and still be crushed by people who have better studying techniques, are more devoted, are more resilient than you

This may come as a surprise, but factors like this are included when considering a person's talent for a particular discipline. It's not just about reaching a particular baseline without training... it's also about how effectively you can train yourself to become even better.

Natural talent does exist, but it's not anywhere near what people think it is.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IGVwr_WFSBU

"...of course, I have both natural talent and effort stacked on top!"

Dungeater posted...

So to be clear, if you take ten people, make the details of their life and upbringing exactly the same, down to the level of care, meals, etc. everything

a couple of those people will still be inclined to be better at thing X than the rest of the group?

Physical characteristic is a thing so yes. Taller people from that group most likely will be faster in running, heavier/bulkier in combat sport, lighter in jumping and so on.

You could go further and try to equalize their physical stats too through DNA modification during pregnancy but at that point they would no longer be people. They would be clones.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/2/266818c7.jpg

Yes, there's such a thing as natural talent. We all know people who have perfect pitch, excel at drawing, have greater athleticism etc. There are also such things as perseverance, application, and practice.

Those with natural talent have a head start and a higher ceiling as to what is possible for them to achieve. But if they lack application, it is possible for those without natural talent to match or surpass them.

definitely. look at someone like Michael Phelps whose body was practically built just to swim. yes, he put in a lot of work to get where he got, but without a body built the way his was (genetics), theres no way he would have ever been as successful.

Skills are learned and attributes are something youre endowed with.

thisworld posted...

lighter in jumping

Entirely tangential, but the best unassisted, static vertical leap comes from a strong build. You basically want to be as close to a roided dwarf as possible.

Dungeater posted...

So to be clear, if you take ten people, make the details of their life and upbringing exactly the same, down to the level of care, meals, etc. everything

a couple of those people will still be inclined to be better at thing X than the rest of the group?

To extrapolate on what I mean by the definition of natural talent being murky, following this example:
Life template A: Person 1 & 2 excel at the talent while everyone else is mediocre

Meanwhile a Life template B that is completely tweaked and used on the same 10 people: Person 4, 5, 6 and 7 are the best and everyone else fails to keep up the same way.

Which ones were truly natural talents? Just because person 1-2 develop better under one method and 4-7 develop better a different way, are either really "naturally" more talented than the others? Was template A really a better way to be raised if it produces fewer talented people?

Some people are just born gifted. Sasuke was born with the Sharingan, which gave him many powers that a normal person couldn't dream of having.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

This may come as a surprise, but factors like this are included when considering a person's talent for a particular discipline. It's not just about reaching a particular baseline without training... it's also about how effectively you can train yourself to become even better.

Of course, the same way your height and weight is also taken in consideration when joining a hockey team. However, natural attributes can only take you so far. We all love the myth of the naturally gifted who crushes the competition because it is his/her God given right. In reality, their training regiment is still extremely harsh. Guys like Mozart, Michael Jordan, Floyd Maywheather still had to give up their entire lives to their craft to attain that level of success. Students in medicine are notorious for having no life beside studying, training, thinking about their discipline.

Believe it or not but it was revealed that resilience and consistency were the ultimate, determining factor for success, yes, even more important than IQ. Not saying that IQ doesn't contribute; let's be careful with our words. Having a high IQ simply means you have an easier predisposition to attain that goal but you beating your competition and attaining that goal is a whole different thing.

Pikachuchupika posted...

Some people are just born gifted. Sasuke was born with the Sharingan, which gave him many powers that a normal person couldn't dream of having.

Sasuke's an interesting case. He was always among the most gifted of the clan of his time, but his progress was delayed by trauma and a lack of teachers for his specific talents.

In hindsight, the shinobi rank system is kinda fucked. Kakashi could've been raising Sasuke a lot sooner.

Dungeater posted...

So to be clear, if you take ten people, make the details of their life and upbringing exactly the same, down to the level of care, meals, etc. everything

a couple of those people will still be inclined to be better at thing X than the rest of the group?

obv this is a silly and completely unrealistic hypothetical. just tryin to zero in on what ppl think

I'm not sure how this is even a question of natural talent existing.

That doesn't necessarily mean that makes someone better, where there is not much difference in skill between someone naturally talented and another who has achieved the same level through great dent of effort in mastery of something.

setting aside physical traits for a sec, how bout this

i got into a discussion yesterday in which my partner was adamant that, if completely equalized for life and opportunities, anybody could achieve *anything*

he said the opportunities are out there, so if life allows them to take those opportunities, anyone could succeed at Dream X

i disagreed, i said that i think even if all things are equalized, there will be ppl who __cannot__ do whatever Dream X is

Absolutely. Not everyone can be Jordan, Michael Jackson, Mayweather, or Brady, even if they trained the exact same way, in the same amount of time they did.

We all have natural talent in something. But the sad thing is, most of us will never find out what.

Guide posted...

Entirely tangential, but the best unassisted, static vertical leap comes from a strong build. You basically want to be as close to a roided dwarf as possible.

I stand corrected; had a brain fart there. I was thinking about Fosbury Flop for Olympic high jump event when I wrote that. Need someone taller than a dwarf for that.

EightySixChuChu posted...

Believe it or not but it was revealed that resilience and consistency were the ultimate, determining factor for success, yes, even more important than IQ.

Right, but like, I don't see how that contradicts what has been said in here before. You come across like you're arguing against points that haven't been made lol

Sheiky-Baby posted...

We all have natural talent in something.

Do we though?

How would that work? Does the Talent Fairy come and visit us when we are born?

Dungeater posted...

i disagreed, i said that i think even if all things are equalized, there will be ppl who __cannot__ do whatever Dream X is

Some people naturally lack the reaction time to be a top tier athlete. Completely ignoring any kind of muscle building, training exercises, etc., sometimes a person's thoughts are just slower than other people's and that can make the difference between winning or losing in a direct clash of ability.

Dungeater posted...

setting aside physical traits for a sec, how bout this

i got into a discussion yesterday in which my partner was adamant that, if completely equalized for life and opportunities, anybody could achieve *anything*

he said the opportunities are out there, so if life allows them to take those opportunities, anyone could succeed at Dream X

i disagreed, i said that i think even if all things are equalized, there will be ppl who __cannot__ do whatever Dream X is

This is a bit like two different ideas talking past each other, perhaps. If someone does something that another cannot, there is some difference there, while your partner has a generalized qualifier of "everything" is equal, which can also be true.

Yeah that's like an impossible thing to determine. You can't put physical traits completely aside... brain composition itself is a physical trait. If they're completely identical in every way can't even be a different person in any sense.

EightySixChuChu posted...

Guys like Mozart

I'm not arguing against your overall point, but Mozart is perhaps the worst example. At no point did he undergo super extensive training: He born into a musical family and received lessons from his father, but he was beyond those lessons almost immediately, he was putting out pieces at the age of 5, and he spent as much of his time partying as he did playing for parties. He spent almost all of his life touring as a showcase of talent. Mozart, perhaps more than anyone else, is the the clearest and most extreme example of talent.

Dungeater posted...

i got into a discussion yesterday in which my partner was adamant that, if completely equalized for life and opportunities, anybody could achieve *anything*
i disagreed, i said that i think even if all things are equalized, there will be ppl who __cannot__ do whatever Dream X is

First thing first you can't equalize all things like that, you just can't. There's no arguing with homo sapiens biology here.

Baby's genes affect their brain development during pregnancy. It doesn't work like PC parts where you can use the exact same part for different PC. Different babies, different brains. That's it. Even you raise them the very exact same way, their brains still hold different potential and edge.

This statement is a self contradicting statement:
...if all things are equalized, there will be ppl...
Like I said before, if you want to equalize ALL things including brains, you'll have to go with clones not people.
...if all things are equalized, they will no longer be ppl...

Both you and your partner make an argument based on the idea that it's possible to equalize everything. Well mother nature disagrees ;)

But! Let put that aside for a moment. Let's say you go with clones instead of people and completely equalize everything both in nature and nurture aspects. In that case, your partner is right. Each clone would be able to do what every other clone could.

EightySixChuChu posted...

That's a bad example because having a high IQ is not enough to become a doctor. You can have a high IQ and still be crushed by people who have better studying techniques, are more devoted, are more resilient than you. The last one is especially important because resilience and imagination (a word that encompasses creativity, adaptability, malleability) are the key factors that distinguishes an average candidate vs an extraordinary one.

"Natural talent exists" and "natural talent isn't an all encompassing answer for all differences" aren't mutually exclusive statements. You're arguing against a point that wasn't made.

ai123 posted...

Do we though?

How would that work? Does the Talent Fairy come and visit us when we are born?

By the logic that some people are genetically inclined to be more athletic, or more talented in music, etc. it would make sense that your ancestors did something they were talented in for hundreds and thousands of years to allow you to be alive today. Therefore everyone does in fact have a natural talent in something. I dont know how talent works though so Im just guessing.

I dont understand why people would argue that natural talent doesnt exist though. Perfect pitch is a good example because apparently it can be learned but people are generally born with it.

thisworld posted...

Both you and your partner make an argument based on the idea that it's possible to equalize everything. Well mother nature disagrees ;)

that isnt what either of us...

ya know what never mind

the people here man

EightySixChuChu posted...

Believe it or not, having ''natural talent'' is the biggest curse for success. Naturally talented people get so used at being good they don't develop the work ethic, the thick skin to sustain real hardships and adapt to ever changing challenges. They might be good at first, beating everyone effortlessly but comes a point where natural talent is no longer enough when you are facing people that have prepared to fight back against someone like you. The best school of life is being bad at something right from the start; it forces you to decipher a challenge, to analyse all its aspects, to pin point the information that is relevant to overcome it, the requirements you lack and have to develop to not being caught off-guard again and turn that challenge into an advantage to use against others.

I will strongly urge people to read the excellent book from Angela Duckworth called ''Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance''. Truly, if you had one book to read this year, you should read that one.

I absolutely believe that. Look at Freddy Adu.

No doubt.

Some people just have a natural aptitude for a particular talent or skill.

It's a tough pill to swallow, but some definitely are more gifted than others in particular skills.

It's even quite possible people here may have a talent (no guarantees obviously) that you don't know about. A skill that if you were forced to pick up, you would be a natural at. Although that skill could be a useless or a skill you don't care about.

is your natural talent to eat dung?

WingsOfGood posted...

is your natural talent to eat dung?

i would say that if i had a natural talent, itd be reading people or situations. i guess u could distill it to "prediction" or some such

Dungeater posted...

i would say that if i had a natural talent, itd be reading people or situations. i guess u could distill it to "prediction" or some such

but your username is dungeater
want to know about your talents relating to that

I don't think there is a quantifiable, single metric to determine whether talent is "natural" or not.

It's just too many factors that go into any skill or ability set from your genetics, to life experience, to the amount of time to put into practice.

WingsOfGood posted...

but your username is dungeater
want to know about your talents relating to that

he's an Elden Ring character

Dungeater posted...

that isnt what either of us...

ya know what never mind

the people here man

Got carried away there. I'm sorry. Point was: yes, it exists. Talent, aptitude, predisposition or whatever you call it. It's biological trait after all. Care and education could equalize that to an extent but not nullify it completely.